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 Val Pothecry made a declaration in respect of agenda item 8 and 9, that she would not take part in the debate or vote but would speak as the Local Ward Member and would withdraw from the meeting once she had made her representation.

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 27^th September 2024.

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.

Erection of community hub/cafe building with offices over, associated car parking & associated public amenity park.

The Case Officer updated members that there had been an additional amendment to condition 6.

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 application had been resubmitted to address the previous reasons for refusal. Photographs of the proposed block and floor plans, montages of the proposed scheme and images of the surrounding area were shown. The proposal was modest and had carefully utilised the space whilst ensuring the retention of the open green space, hedgerows and trees to mitigate visual impacts. The Case Officer discussed the proposed floor plans in further detail, highlighting that the first-floor plan would have been for flexible use and provided an outdoor seating area. Parking arrangements were also discussed and had been considered to be adequate and would not have had any adverse impacts on road safety. The Case Officer informed members that if the application were to be approved, the scheduled Cabinet meeting in October would determine whether the scheme before members today or the previously approved scheme would be most appropriate and approved. Each scheme should have been considered on its own merit and therefore, was not a consideration for members of the Northern Area Planning Committee.

The location was sustainable, and the proposal was deemed acceptable in terms of its scale, layout, design and landscaping. It was compatible with its surroundings and would not have had any negative impacts on amenity. The development would have provided a much-needed community facility. It complied with the policies of the development plan and there were no material considerations which would have warranted refusal of the application. The recommendation was to grant subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Public Participation

Mr Yeo spoke in objection to the proposal. He made members aware that he was a town councillor and a trustee of Mampitts Charity Plus but was speaking in his own personal capacity. Mr Yeo did not feel as though the application had been submitted lawfully as it had never been presented to a town council meeting and therefore was not considered to be lawful. He didn’t feel as though it complied with the section 106 agreement of the whole estate and was not a sustainable development. Parking had not changed, and he felt that it was dangerous and would have encouraged illegal parking. To conclude, Mr Yeo felt that the building was a poor use of the site, it didn’t meet the needs of local residents and in his opinion was an unlawful application. He hoped members would refuse.

Mr Larrington-White also spoke in objection and explained that he lived near to the proposed site and currently enjoyed looking at the green from his property. He felt that the creation of a community hall would create an increase in urbanisation. This was not what residents wanted and he strongly objected. Mr Larrington-White also highlighted parking and traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Erection of 3 dwellings with off street parking, garaging and private outdoor amenity space (Outline application to determine access only).

The Case Officer provided members with the following update:

• The annual position statement had fixed the land supply to 5.02 years.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site as well as important heritage assets and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the indicative site plan, site boundaries and views from within the proposed site and surrounding areas were shown. Members were informed that the site wasn’t within the conservation area and there were no Tree Protection Orders on site. Details of the topographical survey were provided, and the Case Officer referred to the existing and proposed site access and road layout. Comments had been raised by the Highways team in which they had identified that the access road was narrow but had been deemed acceptable subject to conditions. To conclude the presentation, the officer identified key issues such as the principle of development being within the settlement boundary, character and appearance, living conditions, flood risk, highways safety and parking. The Case Officer’s recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Local residents spoke in objection to the proposal. They highlighted the congestion issues which had been an ongoing problem, particularly due to school traffic and were concerned that further development would have contributed negatively to an already busy lane which was not easily passable. Both Mr Ward and Mr Savoy were also concerned regarding difficult areas for access as well as highlighting issues surrounding inadequate drainage systems. Public objectors hoped that members would refuse the application.

Mr Grimwood thanked the committee for allowing him to speak and spoke in support of the proposal. He had visited the site for several years and felt that the proposal would have been a result of gentle infilling. There were no adverse impacts on the character of the area and was pleased to see that the proposed properties would have been set back from the road, providing ample off-site parking. Mr Grimwood did highlight the traffic movements, however, did not feel as though the proposal would have caused an increase in parking. Therefore, he hoped members would support the officer recommendation.

Mr Baimbridge spoke as the agent and thanked the officers for their report. He highlighted that there had been no objections from technical consultees or the Case Officer. The Highways authority was satisfied with the proposal and the plans submitted were indicative which demonstrated the accommodation of three dwellings. The agent felt as though the proposal was an effective use of the land and was in keeping with Bay Lane. Mr Baimbridge referred to the loss of the fruit trees and orchard, however, noted that it was not a reason for refusal. It was a small site with a particular interest to contribute to housing land supply and complied with Local Plans and the NPPF. He respectfully requested the committee to approve.

Members questions and comments

• Clarification regarding whether the Highways department consider visitor parking when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Erect 4 No. open market dwellings and 3 No. affordable dwellings with associated parking and amenity areas, and the construction of a new vehicular access and road to replace the existing vehicular access.

The Case Officer provided members with an update in respect of 5-year housing land supply.

•         The annual position statement had fixed the land supply to 5.02 years.

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. Photographs of the proposed layout, elevations and floor plans were shown. Images of views along cycle paths were also included which identified that there was no street lighting. The presentation aided members in identifying the existing access as well as the location of the proposed dwellings. Details of the visibility splays and proposed building materials were also provided, highlighting a traditional design had been considered. A non-designated heritage asset had been identified in the Gillingham neighbourhood plan as well as nearby listed buildings. The Case Officer also discussed a number of mature trees and hedgerows on the site which acted as a screen to the proposed site from the surrounding area, noting that tree officers were concerned that there had been no details for mitigation for loss of trees. Members were also informed of the tree constraints plan in which there were a number of trees in the area of which the houses were proposed.

The planning considerations were set out, highlighting that the proposal was outside the development boundary contrary to the settlement boundary. It was not considered to be acceptable, and the proposal had not demonstrated that the development would have been acceptable in relation to trees. The benefit of proposal was the provision of 7 dwellings, 3 of which would have been first homes however this did not outweigh the unsustainable location, contrary to the spatial strategy. The Officer’s recommendation was to refuse for the following reasons:

• principle of the proposed development was unacceptable, as the site was located outside of any settlement boundary, therefore it was an unsustainable location.
• In the absence of a mitigation scheme for the loss of trees on the site, it had not been possible to properly assess the impact of the proposed development on the trees.

Public Participation

Mr Williams thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak. The agent referred to previous council in which the location was unsustainable, however, he felt the policy was out of date and the proposal was now situated in what he considered to be a sustainable location. Mr Williams discussed the direct pavement and cycle way links which would have ensured connectivity. There was also a tree mitigation proposal which would have limited loss. The agent was pleased that the town council and a lot of local residents supported the proposal, and they were happy to accept any conditions the committee felt necessary. Mr Williams hoped the committee would support the proposal.

Cllr Hurst spoke in support of the proposal. She felt that the argument that the site was in an unsustainable location was provers and it did not negatively impact the character and appearance of the area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Development of a cafe, workshop and a new vehicular access and road (to replace the existing vehicular access).

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. Photographs of the proposed elevations and floor plans were provided as well as details of the proposed site plan and constraints. Members were informed that the café was to be ancillary which would have been run by the applicant and the workshop was speculative development. Parking provision was also detailed, highlighting that two disabled parking spaces were proposed to be allocated for the café and two proposed for the workshop. The Case Officer referred to the tree protection plan which had identified those to be removed and those to be retained. Details of the visibility splays and existing site entrance were provided. The key planning considerations were considered to be acceptable. The proposal was for an employment site and had been supported by policy. If approved, it would have provided full time equivalent jobs. However, it was not considered to be appropriate in the countryside, nor was there an overriding need for the business within the proposed location. Therefore, the principle of the development was not acceptable. There were no impacts on neighbouring properties, and it was well screened from non-designated assets to the south. Highways were satisfied with the proposal, subject to conditions. The proposed ancillary café would have supported the nursery business and provided further employment opportunities at the site, whilst also providing a community hub for the village. In contrary, the officer’s recommendation was to refuse.

Public Participation

Mr Hunt addressed the committee and explained that the garden centre had grown, offering customers full range of garden products and employed 70 full time and part time staff. However, it needed to grow further in order to thrive and be on par with completion. The applicant loved what he did however it was a harsh environment to thrive, let alone grow further.  He discussed the need for small, traditional businesses and stated that it was a vocal point for the area. He was happy to accept conditions which would have helped to secure their future. Mr Hunt also explained that additional planting would have been carried out if approved.

Cllr Hurst addressed the committee and spoke in support. She stated the need for a community facility and supported the economic development of the area. Other similar businesses have café areas; therefore, this proposal was worthy of approval. It was a well screened site and would have been beautified with planting in its environment. Cllr Hurst felt that it was in the public interest and the benefits outweighed the harm.

The Local Ward member spoke in support and praised the applicant. She expressed that there was currently no meeting place for residents and the proposal offered further employment opportunities. There were numerous petitions to support and considered it to be important to allow for businesses to have a level playing field. There were no highways concerns nor where their negative amenity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Remove existing roof and erect first floor extension.

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. Images from within the site showed the relationship between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring property which represented good separation differences. Photographs of the existing site, particularly the existing elevations and proposed floor plans were shown which demonstrated the character and appearance of the area. Members were informed that the dwelling was set back from the main road and there were no concerns regarding the proposal causing overbearing issues to neighbourhood properties. There were no further impacts on biodiversity than the existing dwelling nor was there any additional flood risks. The Case Officer highlighted the existing and proposed roof plans, identifying the addition of dormer windows and noting that the increase in ridge height was less than a metre. The key planning considerations were discussed, particular detail was given to the design in which members were informed that the glazed aspect would have created an interesting focal point. The materials and design were considered to be acceptable. The impacts on local heritage assets and listed buildings were identified. The officer’s recommendation was to grant subject to conditions set out in the report.

Public Participation

Cllr Edwyn-Jones spoke in objection to the proposal. She explained that the town council supported homeowners wherever possible however on this occasion they did not feel as though could support. They felt that the design had too much glazing which didn’t conform with the character of the area and therefore would have no benefits to it. In addition to this, she also discussed concerns regarding impacts on the conservation area and the altered ridge height. Cllr Edwyn-Jones felt that the proposal was a major remodelling of the existing dwelling, and it was excessive and architecturally incoherent. The town council hoped members would have been inclined to refuse.

Members questions and comments

• Members felt that the proposal had been carefully designed and was well screened.   

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 Rory Major, and seconded by Cllr Belinda Rideout.

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

Demolish and rebuild sections of the boundary walls.

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. Members were informed that the proposal was a heritage asset at risk, a Victorian wall built on top of Roman ramparts, situated within the designated Dorchester conservation area. The retaining structure was tilting, cracking and bulging to the extent that the walls were at risk of collapse and were temporarily supported. To help preserve the historic wall, it would have been carefully dismantled and rebuilt to limit harm and the historic fabric would have been salvaged and reused wherever possible. It was agreed that if approved, careful supervised demolition by hand would be carried out as well as only agreed power tools. To ensure strict methodology, a detailed photographic record of the entire project would have been collected and submitted to the LPA and Historic England. Some supervision by archaeologists would have also been required and a sample panel would have been built and approved by conservation officers and remain in situ to be used as a benchmark for all subsequent workmanship. The proposal had been carefully considered and whilst there was harm resulting in the proposal, essential nature of works securing the longevity of the wall and public safety outweighed the harm. The officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

• Members noted the importance of preserving the wall and were pleased to see the proposal before them as the temporary support had been an eye sore. It was a great heritage asset which needed protecting and members were pleased to see the detail behind 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 Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr Rory Major.

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

Demolish and rebuild sections of the boundary walls.

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. Photographs of the surrounding wall were shown, and the historic significance was highlighted. Details of nearby listed buildings were provided, showing the distances between them and the proposal. Sections of the historic wall were to be demolished and rebuilt to limit harm. This complied with paragraph 206 of the NPPF. The Case Officer noted that less than substantial harm would have resulted from the proposal. The recommendation was to grant listed building consent subject to conditions.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

• There were no questions or comments.

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.

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 are no exempt items scheduled for this meeting.  

There was no exempt business.