Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Bill Trite and Julie Robinson.

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.

Cllrs Shane Bartlett, Alex Brenton, David Tooke, Robin Cook, David Morgan, Barry Gorringe and John Worth, declared an interest in agenda item 6 as members of the National Trust. It was agreed that they would take part in the debate and decision.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 6^th December 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 6^th December 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.  Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee

The deadline for notifying a request to speak is 8.30am on Monday 8^th January 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.

Redevelopment of existing hotel to provide new tourist accommodation including: 30 hotel bedrooms, apartment and villa accommodation and associated leisure and dining facilities.

The Case Officer provided members with the following updates:

·       Floorspace- As stated in the committee report, the Gross External Area (GEA) for the proposed development (supplied by the applicant) was 15,813sqm. The Gross Internal Area (GIA) for the proposed development (as calculated by the Council's CIL Team) was 14,836sqm.

·       Parking- The extent of existing parking at the site identified in 2018 was 79 spaces.  The applicant carried out a further study for this application and identified an additional 7 spaces, increasing this to 86 spaces.

·       Economic benefits- Page 55 - £65mil spend on construction + £9.4mil in wages.

·       Policy E8 Dorset Heathlands of the Emerging Purbeck Local Plan- Policy E8 of the emerging Local Plan is relevant to the application but should not be given any significant weight in the decision-making process. This policy continues the approach taken in Policy DH of the Purbeck Local Plan and in the Dorset Heathlands SPD to require that ‘residential development involving a net increase in dwellings or other uses such as tourist accommodation’ … ‘will not be permitted within 400 metres of heathland’.

·       Response from the Natural Environment Team:

•       Confirm applicant has not followed Biodiversity Protocol and Biodiversity Plan has not been submitted for the current application.

•       Effects on nightjar are not known.

•       Concerns around accuracy of baseline habitat assessment, particularly classification of grassland to the south of the hotel as dry acid grassland

•       Stated 38.5% increase in habitat units reported within the Environmental Statement should be viewed with caution and should not be given substantial weight in decision making.

•       Potential effects on lowland dry acid grassland are unknown.

•       Mitigation is not described in the level of detail sufficient to provide confidence that it is appropriate and achievable.

•       Further information from applicant-

•       Agreeable to an amendment / restriction use to Use Class C1 (hotels)

•       Willing to accept condition or obligation restricting cats and dogs.

•       Would remove dog facilities but still deliver the woodland walk.

•       Would continue to deliver mire restoration.

•       Officer response: These amendments have not been formalised e.g., through an amended application form or consulted on. This would be required.

•       It is unknown whether these amendments would be sufficient to satisfy Natural England or an Appropriate Assessment

•       The amendments would not have resolved landscape concerns and the recommendation for refusal due to impacts on the Dorset Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Heritage Coast would remain.

•       The National Trust can confirm that the amended proposals do satisfy requests to redirect surface water from discharging to the north of the application site into the Pipley Swamp. When available we would have needed to see the complete updated Drainage Strategy which would presume to include volume flows and impact assessment on the Studland and Godlingston Heath SSSI through which the discharge would flow nearer the final discharge into the sea.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Erect a new dwelling on the northern side of the land.

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 sites approved and proposed elevations, as well as illustrative street scenes were presented. Members were also informed of the sites planning history and the proposed materials. Details of the proposed floor plans and positioning of windows were also highlighted. The Case Officer discussed impacts on neighbouring amenities, the site was considered to have appropriate separation distances and informed members that there would be 2 parking spaces and a turning area for residents. There had been no objections from highways in relation to parking or road safety. The officer’s recommendation was to grant.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

·       The Local ward member had received no objections from residents.

·       Members noted that the site had been neglected and the proposal was an improvement.

·       Clarification on biodiversity enhancements.

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 Mike Barron, and seconded by Cllr David Morgan.

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

Sever the plot and erect a replacement dwelling to southern side of land (Plot A).  As amended by plans rec'd 29/11/23 to omit personnel door on southern elevation.

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 shown the proposed site plans, elevations, first floor and roof plans. The officer also highlighted the impact on road safety, the character of the area and neighbouring dwellings, in which no adverse impact had been identified. The officer’s recommendation was to grant subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification on site boundaries.

·       Confirmation on length of site access and whether the distance can be accommodated and accessible for emergency services.

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 Shane Bartlett, and seconded by Cllr Robin Cook.

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

Demolish the remaining section of the existing dwelling. Erection of dwelling, double garage and cycle store (Plot A on south part of land).  As amended by plans rec'd 29/11/23 to omit personnel door on southern elevation.

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. Included in the officer’s presentation were the proposed site plans and street scenes. Impacts on the character of the area and on neighbouring amenities were also discussed. The officer’s recommendation was to grant.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

·       Members felt as though the proposal was an improvement.

·       Confirmation that any covenants affecting the site were not a material planning consideration. .

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 Alex Brenton, and seconded by Cllr David Morgan.

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.