Agenda and minutes

Given that the meeting was being held as a MS Team Live Event virtual

meeting owing to the need to do so during the coronavirus/Covid -19

pandemic, the Chairman took the opportunity to explain how the meeting

would take place, the way this would be done and the reason for this. She

explained the protocols and processes to be followed and that doing so give

gave the Council the ability to continue to fulfil its obligation of delivering the

planning function and determining applications.

The opportunity was also taken to thank Councillors Brooks and Ezzard for their previously valued contribution they had both made to the work of the Committee and welcomed Councillors Heatley and Robinson to the Committee.

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councilor John Worth – for the whole meeting – and from Councillor Juile Robinson for the morning session, and Councillor Bill Trite for the afternoon session.

To receive any declarations of interest

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

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 26 August 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 August 2020 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. 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 a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered an application 6/2019/0604 for the proposed redevelopment of a site - including the demolition of several school buildings – and the conversion and construction of new buildings to provide 19 dwellings with vehicular access, off street parking, gardens and landscaping at The Old Malthouse, High Street, Langton Matravers.

The relevant planning history of the site was outlined, having previously been the site of an independent girl’s school and, prior to that, a brewery, (as the name inferred) - with this proposed development being sympathetic and in keeping with the retention of that which preceded it. The development was now being seen as a means of making practical use of this brownfield site and going some way to providing for, and meeting, the housing need of Langton Matravers and that area of Purbeck which had been identified. What original features could be retained, would be, including the distinctive diamond shaped window fronting Old Malthouse Lane.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how this were to be progressed; how the development would address housing need in that part of the county; and what this entailed. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity, Langton Matravers village and the character the area.

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, orientation, dimensions – form, bulk, size and mass - and appearance of the development; how it would look – with contextual elevations / visualisation and floorplans being provided for this purpose; the materials to be used; car parking arrangements; where bin storage would be; access and highway considerations; the means of landscaping; where pedestrian accesses would be situated; its relationship with the Dorset AONB and the Langton Matravers Conservation Area; and its setting within Langton Matravers and the characteristics and topography of that part of the village.

Officers showed the development’s relationship with the neighbouring residential areas. For context, views into the site, and around it, were shown, as well as along the High Street and Old Malthouse Lane, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

The development was to be of contemporary design – built around a courtyard - but sympathetic to the natural and historic appearance of the village, with local materials – Purbeck Stone amongst them - to be used throughout, there being a combination of dwelling types proposed: ranging from flats/apartments through to a bungalow; semi-detached and detached properties. How the guttering would complement that which could be found elsewhere in the village and examples of how roof windows would look, were all described.

Members noted that before any development commenced, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Transport Plan were necessary and should be applied, this being accounted for in the conditions.

Given all this, officers considered that all material planning considerations had been addressed -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

With the agreement of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman - and in being endorsed by the Committee - application 3/20/0499/FUL- Erection of a multi-use games area (MUGA) comprising synthetic surface, 3m high perimeter ball stop netting and 8 x 8m lighting columns (additional and amended documents - 6/7/20) at St Ives Primary and Nursery School was deferred, to be considered at a future date.

This was to enable a late comment received from the Council’s Tree Officers on the management of the trees on the site to be considered and assessed by officers, as necessary.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered an application by Lidl – 3/19/1767/FUL - which proposed the demolition of two existing dwellings and the redevelopment of the site through the construction of a Lidl supermarket and associated development, including parking – for 79 vehicles - manoeuvring, and loading areas, plant, boundary treatment, lighting, and landscaping at 76-78 Ringwood Road, Verwood.

Officers explained that the proposed retail building would be a detached structure occupying the southern half of the site and the parking area would be located at the northern end. Access was proposed from Ringwood Road through the existing site entrance, with the building having a gross internal area of 1700sqm in area, of which 1170sqm would be given over to sales space. The remaining internal area would accommodate, amongst other things, storage, staff facilities, a chiller and freezer areas.

Officers clarified that there were to be 12 cycle parking spaces provided, with 6 Sheffield bike stands; that 64 letters of objection had been received from neighbouring addresses and 3 received with no address; and that a Statement of Community Involvement was also submitted with the application which included 3648 consultation responses - with there being a large majority in favour of the application.

As to the relevant planning history of the site, whist the land had been recently used for the display and sale of caravans - as well as accommodating the two residential properties, 76-78 Ringwood Road - an application previously had been refused to build a 64 bed, care home on the basis of its scale, style and bulk, impact on the character of the area, impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on trees. However, the application now being considered had addressed such issues satisfactorily so that this development was now seen to be a means of making best use of this brownfield site and going some way to providing for and meeting the retail need in Verwood which had been identified.

Officers clarified that whilst the category of A1 - shops - was now class E (commercial business and service), as amended 1September 2020 under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, there was a material transitional period until 31 July 2021 where the former use class was still referred to and valid.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers provided context of what the

main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how

these were to be progressed; how the development would address retail need in that part of the county; and what this entailed. The presentation focused on

not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what

effect it would have on residential amenity, Verwood town centre and the character of the area. Officers were obliged to consider whether there were any alternative, suitable sites and whether the development would be harmful to the viability of Verwood town centre. Analysis of evidence had indicated that, in both cases, it was their view that this would not be the case.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

To consider a summary of planning appeal outcomes.

Members noted a planning appeals summary in relation to an appeal allowed by the planning inspector in respect of  the removal of condition 13 of Planning permission 6/2018/0653 (Change of use of existing buildings, conversion of existing school building, demolition of extensions and erection of 1 1/2 storey extension to form 3 dwelling houses and erection of 6 dwelling houses with associated parking and landscaping) to allow unrestricted occupation of the dwellings at the former West Lulworth Primary School, School Lane, West Lulworth - and the reasons for this - with full costs being awarded by decision letter dated 11September 2020.

There were no urgent items for consideration at the meeting.

6/2019/0604 – Redevelopment of site at The Old Malthouse, High Street, Langton Matravers

Martin Barnett

Whilst I have concerns about the number of properties squeezed into the development site, my main concerns about the submitted plans fall into four main areas as follows:

1.      Bin Store

The siting of a communal Bin Store on OML will be hazardous to OHL and new property residents alike.  Additionally, the proposed store fails to provide for Mallow, Samphire and Sea Pink Cottages who currently leave their bins in OML.  The obvious solution is to allow each property to be responsible for its own refuse (as in OML), and have individual collection, or failing that, to have a communal store in a more central location.

2.       Vehicle Access to the Development

The submitted drawings do not appear to accurately reflect the land owned by Number 3 OML, which is opposite the entrance to the development.  It merely shows one car parked at the end of their parking space whereas they could legally park two cars outside of their property, thus reducing the width of access to the development.

With reference to the "Swept Path Drawing", the estate car dimensions which have been used do not reflect the dimensions of many cars. The quoted width of 1.804m is surely an understatement when my modest Ford Focus is 2.04m from wingtip to wingtip.  Irrespective of the above, if one overlays the "optimistic" drawings they clearly show that two cars (let alone two vans) cannot pass each other at the entrance to the development or further down the access road.  This will clearly represent a serious and unacceptable hazard with vehicles having to reverse blind into OML.

The road needs to be wide enough to allow for vehicles to pass, and Emergency vehicles and Refuse vehicles (ref the above) to manoeuvre on site.

3.      Junction of OML/High Street

This junction is currently dangerous due to limited site lines and volume of traffic particularly at school opening and closing times when OML is often used by parents.  This can only become more hazardous with another 19 properties plus 3 cottages using OML once construction is complete, let alone during the construction phase.  Leading onto ….

4.      Construction Management Plan

In my experience, before approval, any such development must submit a Construction Management Plan detailing traffic management, materials storage, post-development restoration, etc, etc.  To date I have not seen such a plan.

 ----------------

Leigh Merrick

• People locally support a redevelopment of reasonable scale, proportion & impact within the existing Settlement Boundary (SB), alongside but not in the AONB & Conservation Area (CA).  We & many others do as well.
• They value the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), adopted locally too in the PLP & draft successor, to protect & enhance Dorset’s outstanding natural environment. 
• They know that new housing “range of need” in Langton is massively exceeded by this application & others in train now. “NEED” is not the driver here.
• People are disturbed by the current picture at the OMH Lane junction which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.