Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Julie Robinson and John Worth.

To disclose any pecuniary, other registrable or non-registrable interests as set out in the adopted Code of Conduct. In making their decision 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 pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

Cllr Bill Trite declared that as he had been seen to predetermine the application - in respect of minute 242  - in views he had expressed at a Swanage Town Council meeting he would speak as local member but take no part in the vote.

To receive, note and confirm – on a ‘minded to’ basis – the minutes of the meetings held on 29 September, 13 October, 27 October and 1 December 2021, so that the Chairman might ratify them, as necessary.

The minutes of the meetings held on 29 September, 13 October, 27 October and 1 December 2021 were received, noted and confirmed – on a ‘minded to’ basis – , so that the Chairman might ratify them, as necessary.

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 application SEC/2020/0001: to modify a Planning Obligation for planning permission 6/2018/0493 (Demolish temporary classrooms and outbuildings and convert existing remaining buildings to form 10 dwellings and erect 20 new dwellings with parking and landscaping, removal of existing raised water tank and to remove the requirement for affordable housing at the former St Marys School, Manor Road, Swanage.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the application were; how these were to be progressed; and what this entailed.

For context, plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, orientation, dimensions and appearance of the development

and of the individual properties access and highway considerations; the characteristics and topography of the site and views into the site and around it; environmental designation considerations; drainage and water management considerations, the means of landscaping, screening the development’s setting within that part of Swanage. Critically the reasons why the applicant now considered to be unable to fulfil the originally planning obligations in providing 11 affordable housing elements were emphasised, all of which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

The basis for the application was explained by officers in that the applicant did not now consider able to fulfil the original planning obligations – in providing affordable housing on as part of the development - given their assessment of commitments required to deliver the development. Given this, they maintained that the scheme would not be viable should this obligation be retained. Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, this had been corroborated by the District Valuer in their independent assessment of the viability of the scheme.

For members understanding officers set out the particular reason for the application in that:-

“The applicant had applied to remove the S106 legal agreement that required the provision of 11 affordable housing units as part of the development. In this instance, Policy AH of the Purbeck Local Plan allowed for development of 100% open market housing where it could be satisfactorily demonstrated that a scheme with affordable housing was not viable. Therefore, if the viability argument was satisfied, the S106 agreement could be removed without resulting in the approved scheme being contrary to the Development Plan.”

Given all the evidence provided ad in taking into consideration the assessment made by the District Valuer, officers were satisfied that the reasons for the removal of this obligation had been met and this formed that basis of their recommendation to Committee.

The Committee were notified of written submissions and officers read these direct to the Committee – being appended to these minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application.

One of the two Local Ward members, Councillor Bill Trite, spoke as a local member only. He was concerned that the element of affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 242.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered applications:

·        P/LBC/2021/03854 – for the installation of roof mounted solar photovoltaic panels (PV) and associated infrastructure

and

·        P/LBC/2021/03855 - for listed building consent

at Durlston Castle, Lighthouse Road, Durlston, Swanage. The two applications were being considered together as each complemented the other.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers showed what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what effect it would have on existing amenity and the character the area - particularly, the Grade II Listed Durlston Castle – situated within a country park - and that it was:-

·        within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

·        within the Purbeck Heritage Coast;

·        within the Durlston Castle Historic Landscape Registered Park and Garden (Grade II);

·        adjacent to the Durlston National Nature Reserve;

·        adjacent to the South Dorset Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest;

·        adjacent to the Island of Portland to Studland Cliffs Special Area of Conservation; and

·        less than 50 metres from the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site.

and taking into account the policies against which this application was being assessed.

Plans and photographs showed the appearance and design of the installation and its dimensions; its setting in conjunction with Durlston Castle and within that part of the Durlston site and - in taking into account the environmental and ecological sensitives of the site - the installations relationship with the characteristics of the other assets in and around Durlston Country Park. Views of how it would look and where it would be situated from around the site were shown.

In taking into account those considerations, officers considered the installation would be largely discreet and unobtrusive and would not detract from the important characteristics of the site.

The basis of the application was designed to achieve carbon savings associated with the installation of proposed solar panels and associated infrastructure which would make a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Associated cost savings would be to the benefit of the continued use of an important historic building for appropriate and publicly beneficial purposes. On site electricity generation would also make a minor contribution to energy security.

However, on the basis of comments from the Council’s Conservation & Design Officer, a modification had been made to the amount of panels and where they were to be situated so that none now were being proposed for installation on the Castle itself and, where they were proposed, there would be fewer of them. Whilst this would reduce their ability to generate the energy originally envisaged, they would still significantly contribute towards green energy generation and their installation was still considered to be viable.

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered that as the Development Plan was supportive of the sustainable use and generation of energy where adverse social and environmental impacts had been minimised to an acceptable level, this could be seen  ...  view the full minutes text for item 243.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered application 3/21/0668/FUL, designed to extend the existing single storey building and change use to that of hand car wash facility at land at rear of 5 High Street (High Street Car Park) Wimborne Minster. The town did not currently have such a car wash within its vicinity.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what effect it would have on local amenity and the character the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was being assessed.

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, orientation,

dimensions and appearance of the facility; access and highway arrangements; what screening there would be and the development’s setting within that part of Wimborne Minster town centre.

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent   development in the town centre – that lay within the Conservation Area of Wimborne and Colehill. High Street Car Park - in which the facility would be sited - was located to the rear of the eastern side of Wimborne High Street, being accessed by a narrow lane which passed between No 5 and No 7 High Street. Views into the site and around the site was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary. Four parking spaces would be lost as a result of the proposal.

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered the acceptability of the proposal in relation to the Development Plan on the basis that:-

·        on balance the principle of the development is considered to be in accordance with saved policy WIMCO23 which provides that the High Street Car Park shall be used for car parking.

·        The proposed hand car wash will not have a significant impact on Highway Safety.

·        The proposal will not harm the historic significance of Wimborne Conservation Area.

·        The proposal will not cause significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring development in terms of noise and disturbance.

·        There are no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this application

For these reasons the proposed development was considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the development plan and so this formed the basis of the recommendation being made by officers to approve the application.

The Committee were notified of written submissions and officers read these direct to the Committee – being appended to these minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application.

Formal consultation had seen no objection in principle from Wimborne Minster Town Council although some concerns remained about access issues and, particularly, that Dorset Council Highways had raised no objection to the proposal

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the presentation and what they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 244.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered application P/HOU/2021/02711 for the construction of replacement porch at 1 Hillside, Affpuddle, Dorset.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers showed what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was being assessed.

Plans and photographs showed the appearance of the development and its dimensions; its setting within that part of Affpuddle and the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential development and their characteristics.

The officer’s assessment was based on the provisions of Para 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and, particularly, on the view of the Conservation Officer in that, whilst there was no objection to the principle of a replacement porch, the proposed design had a dominating affect due to its increased height, width, solidity and roof form which was considered to cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Piddle Valley Conservation Area.

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered that the proposed porch - due to its size, design and visually prominent position - failed to positively integrate with its surroundings and was contrary to the statutory requirement to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing Conservation Areas, resulting in less than substantial harm to the heritage asset which was not outweighed by any public benefit.

The Committee were notified of written submissions and officers read these direct to the Committee – being appended to these minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application.

Formal consultation had seen support for the application from Affpuddle Parish Council and one of the two Ward members, Councillor Peter Wharf.

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the

presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so

as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision. Officers addressed the questions raised – and what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers.

Whilst understanding how the officer’s assessment had been made, the Committee did not consider that the application would cause less than substantial harm. Indeed, they considered that there would be no harm as it could be seen as an enhancement to the street scene and would be a considerable improvement on what was currently there. Moreover, both Affpuddle Parish Council and one of the two local members supported it too. Members asked that, if at all practicable, the porch’s appearance be as complementary as it could be with that of its semi-detached neighbour and that appropriate glazing be considered, as necessary.

On that basis and having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 245.

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 items of business considered by the Chairman as urgent.

------

Jenny Hounsell

I’m dismayed to hear that the developers of the site of the former St Mary's School, Manor Road, Swanage are asking to remove the requirement for affordable housing from their plans. I do not think Swanage needs another 30 houses/flats that local families cannot afford to live in. I would therefore like to register my objection to the amendment to the plans.

--------------------------------------

Paul Angel

I am writing to object to the application by Bracken Developments Ltd to remove the requirement for affordable housing on the site of the former St Mary's School in Swanage.

The developer knew what they were taking on, a difficult site in the town centre, and they always intended to renege on the requirement to include affordable housing within the development. If they genuinely believed that the development wasn't economically viable they wouldn't have proposed development in the first place. The figures shown in their Economic Viability Assessment demonstrate a loss based on 2019 property values. While the cost of build will inevitably have risen, house valuations in Swanage have far outstripped inflation and it is likely that they would now see a fair profit if the market-value houses are sold at 2021 prices.

Please don't let them get away with this. Swanage does not need a high-density development in this location and the only mitigating factor for the town is that there may be some homes that are affordable for local families.

-----------------------------

Becky Stares

I understand that the developer of the former St Mary's School site in Swanage has applied to reduce/remove affordable housing from this site. There is a huge need for affordable housing in Swanage, with so many second homes and people from elsewhere moving in and driving up housing prices.

As a person who was born and bred in Swanage, the only way I have been able to afford to continue living here is to live with my parents in the house where I grew up - something I did not envisage doing at the age of 44. Although I work in a professional job, as a single adult with a child I am not able to afford to buy even a one-bedroomed flat. In my opinion, affordable housing schemes are absolutely essential, to give local people to chance to stay in the area.

I therefore strongly urge you to reject the developer's request.

…………………………….

Richard and Liz Moremon

We wish to OBJECT to the modification of this planning application to remove the requirement for affordable housing for this development.

As a resident of the town, with a daughter who has recently benefited from a similar scheme locally, we think  ...  view the full minutes text for item 247.