Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Julie Robinson, Mike Barron, and Alex Brenton.

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 Bill Trite declared that he was pre-determined for agenda items 6 and 7. It was agreed that he would not take part in the discussion or debate but would speak as the local ward member.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 2^nd August 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 2^nd August 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 11^th September.

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.

Bin store within the curtilage of Royal Victoria & Pier View Apartments.

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 proposed elevations, site location and existing bin storage were included. Members were also informed that the site was within the settlement boundary as well as the curtilage of grade II listed buildings within the Swanage conservation area and the Dorset AONB. Impacts on the heritage assets and neighbouring properties were also discussed.

Public Participation

Mr Andrew Joy raised his concerns regarding the proposal. He informed members that he had several helpful and professional discussions with planning officers. Mr Joy noted that many of the apartments were used as holiday accommodation, so the bin store represented over provision. There was waste provision at the front of Victoria Apartments. He highlighted to Members that the proposal was adjacent to Peter’s Hole, a 17^th century listed building and raised concern about overlooking of bedroom and living accommodation with only moderate screening proposed to protect amenity. Mr Joy raised the potential for the open bin store to attract vermin. He understood that there was a need for change but felt that the proposal was significantly flawed. He also discussed the negative impacts and how approval would result in a loss of privacy, noise, substantial visual harm, and it would create an extensive amount of intrusion.

Mr Joy strongly objected and requested that Members reconsider the officer’s recommendation.

Cllr Avril Harris addressed the committee and agreed with the previous comments made. She raised concerns about the capacity of the bin store, the wall height in comparison to the proposed bins and highlighted issues of access. In addition to this, Cllr Harris also expressed concern about the proposed inclusion of metal gates which would allow views through to private gardens and were inappropriate in the conservation area. Objections were also raised regarding the capacity of the bin store to serve 35 dwellings and odours arising from the new bin store. a loss of privacy, and it wasn’t felt that the proposal was sufficient. An alternative bin store utilising existing ground levels with a lift was suggested as a more appropriate solution.

The Local Ward member also addressed the committee and expressed his concern that the proposal was a health hazard due to the added risk of vermin,  and the lack of roof increasing deposition of waste and odours. There would be serious impact on amenity due to loss of light from the increased height of roofless bin store, odours and overlooking of bedroom and ground level windows of the neighbouring property. There would be intensive use in the summer  as many of the flats are holiday lets. Cllr Trite agreed with comments raised by the Town Council, particularly regarding environmental concerns and felt that there were more suitable areas within the curtilage which would make the proposal more accessible. The Local Ward Member also discussed the listed building and felt that the appearance and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Bin store within the curtilage of Royal Victoria & Pier View Apartments.

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 public representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to defer, was proposed by Cllr Shane Bartlett, and seconded by Cllr David Tooke.

Decision: To defer the item to allow members to undertake a site visit.

Two storey rear extension with dormer window and internal alterations.

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 site location, street scenes, rear boundaries, existing and proposed floor plans were also included. The Case Officer also discussed neighbouring amenities and discussed overlooking of neighbouring properties. Members were informed that there was not enough harm identified to warrant refusal.

Public Participation

The Town Council spoke in objection to the proposal. Cllr Harris described the location of the site and the Edwardian terrace within which it was situated. She raised concerns with the scale of the proposal and potential impact on the character of the terrace and neighbouring amenity. The Town Council did not feel that the proposal was in keeping with the area, particularly as different building materials were proposed for the dormer.

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification regarding pre application advise.

·       Members noted the potential for an extensive increase in overlooking.

·       Considerations regarding obscure glass windows to prevent overlooking.

·       Members noted that the proposal was situated within a characteristic terrace.

·       Negative impacts of the scale of the proposal.

·       Visual impacts

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 public representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to defer, was proposed by Cllr Bill Trite, and seconded by Cllr Robin Cook.

Decision: To defer the item to allow members to undertake a site visit.

Installation of an air source heat pump and erection of 3m high acoustic barrier.

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. Details including existing parking, impacts on neighbouring amenity, character and appearance of the area were provided. The Case Officer highlighted that an acoustic fence was proposed to prevent harm to neighbouring amenity from noise.

In summary, the proposal represented a more sustainable source of heat than the existing boiler and would not have resulted in harm to the character of the area or neighbouring amenity subject to a condition to secure the acoustic fence which was condition no. 3 within the agenda.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

·       Members noted that there had been no objections and fully supported the application and highlighted the environmental benefits.

·       Clarification regarding acoustic fencing.

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; 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 David Morgan, and seconded by Cllr Barry Goringe.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

St Johns CE VC First School  St Johns Hill Wimborne Minster BH21 1BX.

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 informed that the application had been brought to committee due to the proposal being situated on council owned land and that it was within the conservation area. The Case Officer highlighted impacts on neighbouring amenities and character of the area. It was also noted that distances in the report were incorrect, and members were provided with the correct figures.

The Officer’s presentation concluded that the proposal represented a more sustainable source of heat and would not have resulted in harm to the character of the area or neighbouring amenities subject to conditions securing the acoustic fence which was condition 3 in the agenda.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

·       Thanked the officer for their report and presentation.

·       Members were happy to approve the proposal, with the additional conditional as recommended by the Case Officer, to encourage noise mitigation.

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; 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 subject to conditions sent out in the officer’s report.

Erection of new Totem Sign to front of existing forecourt.

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, in particular paragraph 136 of section 12 from the NPPF. Photographs of the site and its surroundings were included. The Case Officer informed members that the site was within the Green Belt and discussed impacts on neighbouring properties as well as highways implications.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

·       Noted that great consideration had been undertaken.

·       Clarification regarding operating hours.

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; 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 David Morgan.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

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.