Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

No apologies for absence were received at the meeting.

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.

Cllr Brenton declared an interest in application P/FUL/2023/02064 and stated that she would speak as the Ward Member for the item and not take part in the debate or vote.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2025 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 24 February 2025.

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.

Enabling residential development of 16 dwellings to facilitate restoration of listed farmhouse and mill building.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application, which was for the erection of 16 dwellings to facilitate the restoration of a Grade II farmhouse and mill. The location of the site was highlighted on a site plan and an aerial photograph of the area. Photographs were also provided of the site, showing the current buildings in a poor state of repair. Members were shown photographs looking across the site, to give an indication of the topography of the site.

It was explained that the proposal was for the development of 16 dwellings with associated parking, to enable the restoration of the two listed buildings. The proposed site plan and elevations of the dwellings were shown, giving an indication of the design and scale of the development, which would have a traditional design in keeping with the rural setting. Members were advised of the site history and pre-application advice that had been given in respect of the proposals.

Officers advised that the development was considered as inappropriate in the green belt. The restoration of the mill and farmhouse weighed in favour of the proposal. Photos of the mill and farmhouse were provided and it was noted that several of the original features of the listed buildings were set to be retained.

Alternative solutions for funding of the restoration works had been considered and discounted due to the significant cost associated with repairing the listed buildings. An independent District Valuer had conducted an assessment and determined the proposed development represented the minimum level of development required to overcome the conservation deficit, which had been established through pre-application discussions.

It was explained that a planning obligation was proposed to secure a delivery plan ensuring that the dwellings could not be occupied until the works to the listed buildings were completed to the satisfaction of a conservation officer.

The key planning issues were summarised. There were not considered to be harmful impacts on heritage assets. Members were advised that the scheme represented a high quality of design. Highways impacts were considered to be acceptable subject to conditions to ensure safe access would be provided and retained and concerns around flood risk had been addressed through a flood risk plan. No affordable housing contribution was sought due to the enabling development justification for the development. The overall planning balance was summarised and it was considered that very special circumstances had been identified to justify inappropriate development in the green belt.

Public representation was received in opposition to the application from Mrs Mathers, Cllr Clews, who spoke as a representative of Morden Parish Council and Cllr Brenton, who spoke as the Ward Member. They raised concerns about the need for the development, the limited benefits of the development to Morden, the self-contained nature of the proposal, the level of traffic that would be entering and exiting the site, parking provision on the site and the potential for flooding on the site. It was also noted that there was a need for smaller properties in the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Demolish existing dwelling and erect 6no 4-bedroom detached houses with associated parking and access.

The meeting adjourned at 12:24 – 13:03

Cllrs Hobbs-Chell, Coombs and Flower left the meeting at 12:24

The Planning Officer presented the application, for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the development of 6 new dwellings on the site. The site location was shown to members and the boundaries of the site identified, it was located adjacent to the green belt and within the settlement boundary.

The officer explained the character of development in the area and the plans of the proposed dwellings were shown, giving an indication of the scale, design and how this responded to topography.

The officer noted that objections had been received regarding neighbouring amenity and explained why it was considered that the distances between the dwellings were acceptable to avoid harm. She confirmed that landscaping would be secured by condition to limit the impact of the dwellings on the street scene and for neighbours. Third party concerns about flood risk were also recognised, however officers were satisfied following the submission of a drainage scheme that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding. The applicant had confirmed they had easement rights to repair and replace the drainage on the site.

Public representation was received in objection to the application from Mr Dunlop and Mr Bevan. They raised concerns about the visual harm of the design, which they stated would not be in keeping with the area. It was also raised that the drainage scheme would require draining across a neighbouring property, which they stated the applicant did not have permission for and as such the drainage strategy was undeliverable.

Mrs Gatehouse spoke in support of the application, as the agent. She noted that care had been taken to ensure that the design was acceptable and the proposal would provide much needed housing in the area. There were also no objections from consultees.

In response to comments from public speakers, the Development Management Team Leader clarified that if the information provided in the application was incorrect regarding the drainage scheme then the development couldn’t go ahead and the applicant would have to submit a new application for consideration.

In response to questions from members the Development Management Team Leader stated that the scheme as submitted was considered acceptable and issues of ownership pertaining to the existing site drainage were not considered to be a material consideration.

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, members considered that the application was unacceptable due to the impact of the development on the character of the area, the reliance on tandem parking and lack of sufficient visitor parking opportunities and the lack of information regarding the drainage scheme, which could worsen flood risk.

The committee agreed to extend the meeting beyond three hours.

The meeting adjourned at 13:55 – 14:05.

Proposed by Cllr Brenton and seconded by Cllr Ezzard.

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes. 

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement dwelling.  Replace existing shed to the rear of the pool with a garden store/room.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling.

Members were shown the location of the site, as well as photographs of the site in its current condition. The proposed site plan was provided, which showed the new dwelling as being slightly larger than the existing. Screening would be included to maintain amenity for neighbouring properties.

There was a public right of way that ran along the access to site and a condition was included for it to be maintained. Concerns had been raised about traffic, however Dorset Council Highways had stated that they did not consider that traffic would be increased by a significant level to warrant a condition being imposed.

Mrs Lightbown spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that Sweet Haven was already overdeveloped as a plot and that further development would increase issues with overlooking on neighbours and light pollution. In addition, she raised concerns that traffic from construction would cause disruption to neighbours.

Mr French spoke as the agent for the application. He noted that the existing house was not fit for purpose and would benefit from being replaced with a modern home. The proposed design would not increase the height of the roof and there would only be a modest increase in the overall size of the property.

In response to members questions the Development Management Team Leader provided the following responses:

·       Demonstrable harm had not been evidenced through the loss of light for neighbours.

·       The length of the driveway would be 12m, which would continue to accommodate two cars.

Proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Goringe.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

Change of use to veterinary clinic class E with minor alterations to facilitate the change.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Development Management Team Leader identified the site and explained the proposal, which was for the change of use to veterinary use Class E.

Photographs of the site were provided and it was explained that officers considered that the previous planning condition imposed still limited use of the site. Officers were also unable to conclude that change of use of the site wouldn’t result in the loss of industrial employment. The applicant had also not marketed the site for the required length of time of 9 months before applying to change the use of the site. The applicant had conducted an extensive search for alternative sites, but had been unable to find a suitable location. Other matters were considered acceptable, however officers did not consider that the need for a veterinary clinic outweighed the failure to adhere to policy.

Public representation was received from Mrs Bolton, the agent and Mrs Evans the applicant. They stated that the site would provide important employment opportunities for local people and allow a local business to expand its premises.

The Development Management Team Leader provided the following responses to members questions:

·       The proposal did not meet the guidance for the recommended number of parking spaces, however this was not considered to be a reason for refusal.

·       The applicant could resubmit their application, should they market the unit for the required amount of time.

Members expressed general support for the application and recognised the benefits of providing a local veterinary clinic to the area and providing employment opportunities. There were also no objections from the Town Council. They concluded that the benefits of employment and amenity did outweigh the failure to comply with planning policy in this instance.

Members were shown the list of conditions that would be imposed should they approve the application and the proposer and seconder confirmed they were happy with the conditions listed.

Proposed by Cllr Brenton and seconded by Cllr Skeats.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

Partial demolition, external alterations and change of use to create three holiday lets with associated landscaping and parking.

Cllr Morgan left the meeting at 14:07.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Development Management Team Leader identified the site and explained the proposal, which was for the conversion of a barn into four dwellings, to be used as holiday lets.

Photographs of the site and the proposed floor plans and elevations of the development were shown to members, in addition to an illustrative 3D model of the proposed building, which gave an indication of the scale and design and its impact on the area. It was noted that there would be an increased number of windows, however light spill would be mitigated through construction methods and because the building was vacant, no affordable housing contribution was required.

The proposal was considered acceptable and it was explained that the planning policy did not require a need for holiday lets to be demonstrated by the applicant.

Public representation in opposition to the application was received from Cllr Wilson, the Ward Member. He stated that there was already a significant amount of holiday lets in the village and that developing in the countryside for holiday accommodation would not be an appropriate use of the land.

Mrs Bolton spoke as the agent for the application. She noted that the development would be utilising a brownfield site and that the overall mass and size of the structure would be reduced through the development. The renovated barn would also provide a more attractive entrance to the village.

The Development Management Team Leader provided the following responses to members questions:

·       The development would consist of three four-bedroom houses.

·       Local materials, including Purbeck stone would used in the construction of the building.

·       The windows would be set behind the balconies to reduce light spill.

·       Approximately 21% of homes in Worth Matravers were used as holiday homes.

·       The application was subject to biodiversity net gain, so any loss had been taken into account.

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, several members expressed concern about the increased light pollution into a rural area.

It was proposed by Cllr Florek and seconded by Cllr Goringe to accept the recommendation and grant approval, with an amendment to condition 5 to ensure that anti-glare glass be used for the windows in the construction of the building. Upon being put to a vote the motion fell.

Proposed by Cllr Ezzard and seconded by Cllr Florek.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

Extension to Planning Approval for Temporary Relocatable housing scheme compromising 6no. detached 1 bed units and a terrace of 11no. 1 bed units and 1. no 2-bed unit for overnight carers with associated landscape and parking.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application, which was for the extension of use for temporary accommodation for carers, the application had come to the committee for determination as Dorset Council was the applicant and landowner.

The proposal was explained to members and the site location displayed on a map. Photographs from around the site were provided, showing the accommodation, parking area, communal space and landscaping. It was explained that the comprehensive development allocated through the Wareham Neighbourhood Plan and Purbeck Local Plan had been delayed due to issues with construction costs, however the applicant still intended to bring the scheme forward in the future. Until then permission was being sought to continue use on the site, which would not prejudice the delivery of the Local or Neighbourhood Plan allocations.

There was not considered to be any issues with the proposal and the applicant was seeking to extend permission on the site for an additional three years.

Members were in agreement that it was necessary to extend the permission on the site.

Proposed by Cllr Ezzard and seconded by Cllr Sowry-House.

Decision:

A)   That authority be delegated to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and/or the Development Management Area Manager East to Grant planning permission subject to receipt of a Unilateral Undertaking under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure contributions towards habitats mitigation.

Or

B)   That permission be refused if the agreement is not completed by 27 August 2025 (6 months from the date of committee) or such extended time as agreed by Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and/or the Development Management Area Manager East.

Remodelling of existing service road, associated pedestrian areas and adjoining planting areas.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application, which was for the remodelling of an existing service road affecting Council owned land. The location of the site on a map and an aerial photograph was shown to members. It was explained that the access road serviced a row of commercial units. The proposed site plan was provided. The proposal aimed to allow service vehicles to better access the road and a disabled parking space, unloading bay and bike stand would also be created. The public benefits of the proposal included improvements to highways safety.

Proposed by Cllr Brenton and seconded by Cllr Florek.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

Erect new store extension, canopy, porch, bin store, new ramp and associated landscaping.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Senior Planning Officer identified the site and explained the proposal, which consisted of works to the Focus Centre in Swanage. The application had come to the committee for determination because Dorset Council was the landowner.

The proposal included the addition of cycle racks, an air source heat pump, a new bin store and a resurfaced parking area. These works were intended to improve accessibility to the site. Photographs and plans of the proposed works were shown to members. No objections had been raised by the Conservation Officer and it was considered that no harm would be caused to heritage assets.

One member raised a concern about the loss of a tree on the site and suggested an additional condition to ensure that any trees lost would be replaced.

Proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Brenton.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

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 x 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.