Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs John Worth, Barry Goringe, Julie Robinson, Mike Barron.

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 Wednesday 8^th March 2023.

Minutes will be published with this agenda shortly. Please use this link to view the agenda for this meeting which includes a link to the recording of the meeting Agenda for Eastern Area Planning Committee on Wednesday, 8th March, 2023, 10.00 am - Dorset Council

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 8^th March 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.  GuidanceforspeakingatPlanningCommittee.doc.pdf (dorsetcouncil.gov.uk).

The deadline for notifying a request to speak is on Monday 3^rd April at 8.30am

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.

Change of use of agricultural buildings at Battle Farm to use Class B8 (storage or distribution).

An update from the Case Officer was provided as follows:

Cllr Wharf submitted a statement regarding the application after the officer report had been published and agreed for his statement to be relayed to members of the committee.

Cllr Wharf worked with the parish council in respect of this application and had expressed concerns that insufficient information had been received to enable proper consideration of the proposal. He supported the Parish Council’s position on the application and requested the submission of revised baseline traffic figures that are independently verifiable prior to determination of the application.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site in relation to settlement boundaries and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the existing agricultural buildings were included in the officer presentation together with details of their scale and floorspace. Details regarding parking provision, job opportunities and the proposed parking bay and site access signage were provided. Members viewed short videos outlining routes to and from the site and informal passing places. The Case Officer outlined the history of the site as a poultry farm, noting the lawful agricultural use could include heavy goods vehicle movements.

The Case Officer informed members that concerns had been raised by the parish council and residents, particularly regarding the impacts on the area arising from an anticipated increase in traffic movement. However, members were informed that on balance no significant adverse impact has been identified and the benefits outweighed the potential harm. The Officer’s recommendation was to approve, subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Public Participation

Residents, the Parish Council and Local Ward Member spoke in objection to the planning application. They raised their concerns regarding an anticipated increase in traffic movement, especially by HGV’s, which they consider would be unsuitable travelling on narrow country roads and they believed would be detrimental to residents’ way of life. They informed members that the road leading to the site access was used by a range of pedestrians and horse riders. If members were to approve the proposal, safety for local road users and residents would be impacted. Objectors also raised their concerns regarding the impacts on biodiversity and protected wildlife species. Residents were concerned about the lack of specific details as what would be stored or distributed at the site. They did not believe that the location was sustainable for the scale of the development. They found it difficult to see any benefits and believed the proposed application was flawed due to reliance on unrealistic agricultural traffic movement data and additional traffic on highways including Yearlings Drove which is signed as being unsuitable for HGVs. Members were informed of the number of objectors due to the scale and increase in traffic movement. All objectors felt the site would result in harm and did not believe the benefits outweighed the harm.

The Parish Council explained their concern that tourist spending would be impacted as a result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 350.

Use of lake for recreational activities (outdoor swimming) and retrospective siting of shipping container to provide changing room facilities.

With the aid of a visual presentation, the Case Officer explained the planning application to Members. Details including photographs of site access and proposed design of changing rooms were provided. Members were informed that following the receipt of bird survey details Natural England were satisfied that the site would not have any negative impacts on protected species. The Case Officer also informed members that woodland management had been included to improve the area for nature. An amended condition was proposed to require the provision of temporary toilet facilities during the swimming sessions. The Officer’s recommendation was to approve.

Public Participation

Mr Patterson spoke in objection to the application. He believed that use of the small private road serving the site was not acceptable nor suitable. He also discussed biodiversity as well as the environmental consequences and flooding risks. Mr Patterson also raised his concerns regarding light pollution. He hoped members would refuse the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application. Ms Weeks informed members that traffic would be restricted due to the restricted number of swimmers. She informed members that the site was only open twice a week and would only be open during the summer months, therefore, there would be no light pollution. The applicant discussed the water quality and informed members that there were no risks. Ms Weeks reinforced that bird species would not be impacted and told members that she’d be happy using a portable toilet again. She hoped members would approve permission in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Mr Pratten spoke in favour of the application. He believed that the use of the site had no adverse impacts on biodiversity and enhanced appreciation of nature. He also praised the health benefits that the site would have on residents both physically and mentally. Mr Pratten informed members that swimmers were mindful of nature and showed a greater interest. He supported the officer’s recommendation to approve.

Members’ questions and comments

·       Professional swimming lake which would be a good benefit to the local area.

·       Responsibility of maintenance for road surfacing and parking clarified.

·       Clarification regarding species of bird on the lake.

·       Controlled management of swimmers and ecological structure.

·       Additional condition for temporary period of 5 years starting from the date of decision proposed to enable the impacts on biodiversity to be monitored.

·       Comments regarding biodiversity, the character of the AONB and Greenbelt openness. 

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 approve planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Shane Bartlett and seconded by Cllr Robin Cook subject to updated condition 10 in the officers report and the additional condition for the use permitted to be for a temporary period of 5 years starting from the date of the decision with the use to be discontinued and any associated paraphernalia  ...  view the full minutes text for item 351.

Erect detached self-build rural exception site dwelling

The Case Officer re-presented members with details of the proposal, focusing on the new details since the scheme was previously considered: namely the 5-year housing land supply; the completion of a legal agreement to secure the building as an affordable dwelling in perpetuity; and a scheme to demonstrate nutrient neutrality. The old septic tank is to be replaced with 2 new wastewater tanks. Members were informed that as a result there would be no adverse impacts on Poole Harbour. Natural England had been consulted and no objections were raised. The scheme was in accordance with planning policy; therefore, the recommendation was to grant planning permission.

Public Participation

The applicant Mr Smith addressed the committee, explaining the amount of work and collaboration with Natural England. He informed members of the need for housing and that the scheme would represent an ongoing benefit for the local community due to it being affordable housing.

Cllr Cherry Brooks, the Local Ward Member, informed members that the applicant had her support. She praised the amount of time and work that had gone into the proposed development by the applicant and hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation to approve planning permission.

Members questions and comments

·       Members praised the inclusion of affordable housing and recognised the benefit that this would have on the local area.

·       Clarification regarding the strength of a Section 106 agreement.

·       Members praised the Case Officer’s report.

·       Clarification as to whether officers were satisfied that the development met the nutrient neutrality requirements.

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 approve planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Shane Bartlett, and seconded by Cllr David Morgan.

Decision: To approve the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the nutrient neutrality mitigation and refuse if the legal agreement is not completed within a timeframe agreed by the Head of Planning.

Sever plot and erect a 4no bedroom detached house.

With the aid of a visual presentation, including aerial photographs and a map of the site the Case Officer explained the planning application to Members. Included were also street scene elevations as well as the proposed design of the dwelling. The Case Officer informed members that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development due to the lack of 5-year housing land supply. Due to the site context very limited impacts on the AONB were anticipated which would be mitigated by design and additional plant screening. Details regarding separation distances between properties and the topography were provided to identify potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties/gardens and impacts on neighbours’ amenities. The Case Officer informed members that the development would not result in harm to the character of the area nor the protected tree. There were no objections raised by the Highways team. The proposal was judged to accord with planning policies and the recommendation was for approval.

Public Participation

The agent and the applicant spoke in favour of the application. They explained how careful consideration had gone into the design of the proposed development and that they had taken on board comments raised by neighbouring properties. The applicant informed members that the protected tree had been at the heart of the proposal and was carefully considered to ensure its protection. Both noted that the proposed site was with within the settlement boundary, would not harm the AONB and that there were no adverse impacts or harm to protected species. Members were informed that Natural England had been consulted and that no objections had been raised. The proposed development complied with local and national policies. They strongly believed that the development was unique and suitable for the area.

Members questions and comments

·       Comments regarding Dark Skies Policies. 

·       Clarification of distance from Woodstock building to the window.

·       Waste collection and management

·       Members praised the detailed officers report presented to them.

·       Members noted the minimal impact from road scene.

·       Members felt that the applicant had tried to overcome any concerns raised by neighbours.

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 approve planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Shane Bartlett, and seconded by Cllr David Morgan.

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.