Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barron, Dyer, Goringe, Morgan, Robinson and Trite.

To disclose any pecuniary, other registrable or personal interest 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.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2022 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.

The deadline for notifying a request to speak is 8.30am on Monday 18 July 2022.

Please refer to Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee attached.

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.

The Committee considered application P/VOC/2022/03461 for the demolition of an existing three storey plus plant room building and erection of new three storey plus plant room building for Dorset Police Force Headquarters with associated parking without compliance with/variation of condition 10 of planning permission P/FUL/2021/04422 - The development shall be constructed to a minimum BREEAM standard rating of 'Very Good' instead of 'Excellent' -  Force Headquarters, Dorset Innovation Park Access Road, Winfrith Newburgh, Dorset, DT2 8DZ.

Officers explained BREEAM stood for ‘Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology’ and comprised a science-based suite of validation and certification systems for a sustainable built environment. The assessment methodology took account of a range of factors that were measured against pre-determined targets that reward performance which delivered social, economic or environmental benefit.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context for the reason why the variation was deemed necessary: in that it was now evident to the applicant from their assessments made that the practicalities of achieving the necessary credits meant that achieving an excellent status was not now necessarily readily achievable, without significant additional investment which would not prove value for money. No change was proposed to the architectural or landscape design proposals previously considered in the determination of application P/FUL/2021/04422; with energy, waste and ecology considerations all still being able to be delivered in the development.

However, BREEAM ‘Very Good’ was still a high sustainability rating well above that likely to be achieved by the existing building. Information submitted in support of the application identified several site constraints limiting the number of achievable and available credits for the proposed development and further indicated that the uplift required to achieve a rating of ‘Excellent’ would, if achievable, have an obvious and clear impact on other force initiatives.

Indeed, replacement of the existing building would better suit the operational
requirements of Dorset Police, would perform to higher level of sustainability and would be the benefit of the local economy.

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

dimensions – form, bulk, size and mass - and appearance of the development; how the demolition and replacement would be achieved; why the variation was necessary; access and highway considerations; environmental and biodiversity considerations and obligations; drainage and water management considerations, the means of landscaping and screening and its setting within that part of the Dorset heathland in the vicinity of Wool.

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent development and how the buildings were designed to achieve optimum efficiency and effectiveness for the purposes it served. The characteristics and topography of the site was shown and its relationship with the highway

network. Views into the site and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered the acceptability of the proposed variation: confirming it was the case that some credits were unobtainable. Achievement of any BREEAM rating was purposefully challenging and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 275.

The Committee considered application P/VOC/2022/01598; to vary condition 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 19 of PA 3/21/1556/FUL (Redevelopment of Wimborne Market to continuing care community comprising of 67 age restricted apartments, 26 age restricted bungalows, 6 age restricted chalet bungalows, one wellness centre, 9 open market houses, parking , highway improvements and pedestrian link (description amended 24.09.2021 as agreed to include dwelling numbers)) to allow for: amend incorrect plans - include phasing plan - rewording of pre-commencement conditions to refer to phasing at Wimborne Market, Station Terrace, Wimborne Minster.

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 planning history of the site was detailed too.

Officers provided an illustrative summary of the location and appearance of the development and what it would entail in terms of its characteristics; access and highway considerations; environmental considerations; drainage and water management considerations and its setting within that part of Wimborne Minster and the wider landscape. Viability, flooding, heathland mitigation and affordable housing issues were all given particular consideration. Views into the site and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary. What contributions were to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement were also detailed.

The proposal was to vary conditions:-

·        2 (approved plans plans),

·        3 (access
construction),

·        4 (turning and parking),

·        6 (biodiversity mitigation),

·        9 (landscaping),

·        19 (acoustic fence).

The reasoning for why this had been assessed to be necessary was explained: in how it was to be delivered - to only provide for the development to be built and occupied in phases, which did not materially change the approved design of the scheme. 

The assessment had considered the acceptability of the proposal in relation to the Development Plan, taken as a whole, and all other material considerations, with all of the foregoing factors being considered in relation to the social, economic, and environmental benefits to be provided by the proposal. It is considered the proposed is acceptable in relation to material planning considerations.

Wimborne Minster Town Council had objected to the application considering that the originals requirements made were for a reason and should remain valid. They saw no reason why this should not be the case. However, they recognised that DC planning officers were best placed to judge this.

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. Some important
points raised, some of which they considered still required clarification, were:-,

·        what access arrangements had been made and what guarantees were in place in use of the industrial estate access given the limitations of Granville Road and Station Road within a densely built residential area

·        the reasoning for how the construction was to be phased and the sequencing of this, including the timescales  ...  view the full minutes text for item 276.

The Committee considered application 3/21/1471/FUL for the demolition of existing flats and dwelling and the erection of 12 x 3 bedroom houses, arranged as 6 pairs of semi-detached properties, together with associated parking and access at 442 Ringwood Road, Ferndown, Dorset, BH22 9AY

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; how these were to be progressed; how the development would contribute to meeting housing needs; and what this entailed. The presentation took 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 development  and of the individual properties, with examples being given of how typical  properties would be designed, along with their ground floor plans; the materials to be used; access and highway considerations; environmental considerations; drainage and water management considerations, the means of landscaping and its setting within that part of Ferndown.

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential

development and how the buildings were designed to be in keeping with the

characteristics of the established local environment. The characteristics and

topography of the site was shown and its relationship with the highway

network. Views into the site and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

How a Section 106 agreement would be enacted and what this entailed was explained to members: in that the construction was not necessarily required to commence until 2025, but this could be brought forward to within 18 months so as to demonstrate the commitment to build out, therefore not requiring a viability assessment. Officers explained the implications of these options. The applicant’s viability appraisal was that the proposal could not support any affordable housing or other financial contributions, apart from CIL. This was the view of the District Valuer Service too, whose option of an earlier start to the scheme had been accepted by the applicant; this being reflected in condition 1. However, the Dorset Council Housing Officer still raised an objection to the lack of affordable housing on that basis.

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered the acceptability of the proposal in relation to the Development Plan and this formed the basis of the recommendation being made.

Giles Moir, agent, considered the application would make a positive contribution to the housing stock in Ferndown, having taken into account local issues raised and addressed these as best the applicant might. He hoped there would not be a need to enter into a S106 - for a viability study - and that work could progress at the earliest opportunity.

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 Ferndown Town Council object to the scheme on the grounds of overdevelopment and access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 277.

The Committee considered application 3/20/1725/LB for the replacement of four windows at Pamphill First School, Pamphill Wimborne, BH21 4EE with the application being considered as the Council’s Assets and Property section was the applicant.

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

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, dimensions and appearance of the school and its windows; how these would be replaced and by what means - given that the building was Grade II listed; the materials to be used; environmental, sustainability and built heritage considerations - given the status of the building - and that it was within the Pamphill Conservation Area.

The characteristics and topography of the school site was shown and views into the site and around it, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

Officers explained there was a need for the replacement windows as those currently there were in a poor state of repair – having become unfit for purpose - and did not meet sustainability standards which might be expected.

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered the acceptability of the proposal which would not result in any harm to the designated Heritage Asset and this formed the basis of the recommendation being made.

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. Some important points raised were and which they considered still required clarification were:-

·        what the windows would be constructed of; what the quality of the materials to be used were and of what composition and; where these would be located on the building

·        that local craftsman and firms might be engaged, if at all practical and possible within the terms of any contract or tender exercise

Officers addressed the questions raised – and what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers – in being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application -

which the Committee understood to be, and saw, as generally acceptable.

From debate, the Committee considered the proposal to be acceptable - understanding the need for new windows to maintain the fabric of the building and which were in keeping with their surroundings.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report

and presentation; and what they had heard at the meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by Councillor Robin Cook, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed - unanimously - to grant permission, subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Resolved

That application 3/20/1725/LB be granted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 278.

The Committee considered application P/HOU/2022/01307 to square off front of property, erect rear extension, with addition of new first floor accommodation to converted roof space with new dormer to side elevation at  54 Sandy Lane, Upton, Poole, BH16 5LX

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

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of what was being proposed and how it would be achieved, showing the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential development and what this entailed. It was pointed out that, the architecture and design of dwellings in the area varied considerably so this proposal would not be seen to be out of keeping. The characteristics and topography of the site was shown and views from the property and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

In summary, the officer’s assessment considered the acceptability of the proposal in relation to the Development Plan and this formed the basis of the recommendation being made.

One member of the public – a neighbour - had objected on the grounds that the rear gable end window would overlook their property to the rear of the site,
causing a loss of privacy. Moreover, it was claimed that work had already started on the extension.

Clive Bailey – who was the neighbour who owned No 28 – explained that despite the offer to obscure glaze one of the windows, a much similar view could be had from the adjacent one, given the orientation of the room. On that basis, privacy would still be compromised by virtue of overlooking. He was of the view that the issue had not been adequately addressed and asked for the application to be refused.

Formal consultation had seen Lytchett Minster and Upton Town Council object to the application - in supporting the neighbour’s objection on overlooking. This view was shared by Lytchett Matravers and Upton Ward
Councillors Bill Pipe and Alex Brenton.

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. Whilst the application was being progressed, in response to concerns raised, the applicant had agreed that the western element of the rear first floor window could be obscure glazed to reduce the potential for overlooking. On that basis, officers considered the application to be reasonable.

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.

Some important points raised were and which they considered still required clarification were :-

·        what opportunity was there to obscure glaze both windows and was this a practical option. This option was put by Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 279.

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 for consideration.