Agenda and draft minutes

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.

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests made at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 31^st July 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 31^st July 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 2^nd September 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.

Erect 3 no. dwellings with associated parking, access and landscaping. (demolish existing dwellings).

Members were provided with the following update;

• The officer’s recommendation had been altered to reflect the need for  affordable housing contributions in line with policy H11.
• Additional condition 19. There shall be no external lighting of the residential plots unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the character of the intrinsically dark Dorset National Landscape.

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. The officer referred to concerns raised by the previous Local Ward member, Parish Council and third party objectors in regard to a lack of infrastructure and over development of the site. In addition to this, members were provided with details of the site history,  including pre application advice and were shown photographs of views looking towards the site, illustrative street scenes and proposed block and floor plans. Members were informed that the proposed design was similar to the pre application and would provide modern accommodation, garages and pools whilst being setback into the hillside to reduce height increases. The Case Officer advised members that a Landscape Visual Assessment had been carried out.

The officer also explained the proposed building materials, highlighting the inclusion of timber  screens and anti-reflective glass to prevent overlooking and light spill. The distances between each dwelling were considered to be acceptable and the sustainability statement advised that ground floor heat pumps would be installed as an appropriate alternative to solar panels. The principle of the development was considered to be acceptable as the site was within the settlement boundary. The layout, scale, design, impact on character and appearance of area and the Dorset National Landscape was also considered to be acceptable. Therefore, the officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report and an additional condition 19 and either:

• The completion of aS106 planning obligation to secure the Affordable Housing contribution in accordance with policy H11 of the Development plan,

OR

• The applicant providing full justification of particular circumstances that prevent the provision of affordable housing on the site and the viability assessment is verified by an independent person appointed by the Council in accordance with policy H11 of the Purbeck Local Plan 2024.

Public Participation

The planning agent for the applicant, Mr Davies, welcomed the officer recommendation and highlighted that the existing site had little architectural merit and needed work to be completed in order for the buildings to meet building standards. The agent explained the history of the site and the rational behind the combined plots. The proposed dwellings had been carefully and sensitively designed by a local architect with a mixture of styles and materials to respect the local character of the area. Mr Davies reiterated that the proposal was within the settlement boundary and the separation distances  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Proposed single storey front and two storey rear extension, plus construction of two side dormers within new roof and a balcony on the rear elevation.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site within the settlement boundary of Wareham and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the proposed elevations, floor and site plans were shown with the addition of views from the street scenes. Members were provided with details of the officer pre-application advice and were informed that the proposal before them had been amended. .  The Case Officer highlighted the objections which had been raised by Wareham Town Counciland third parties, noting comments that the asymmetric design was not in keeping with the area and if granted, would have set a precedence for overdevelopment.

The officer discussed the impacts on neighbouring amenity, referring to the assessment of impacts set out in the agenda report. The proposal would be visible from footpaths to the north and neighbouring allotment gardens; however, it was not considered that the changes would have any detrimental impacts nor warrant a reason for refusal. It created a modest design and included the proposal to erect a boundary fence to provide screening. The dormer window which would be evident for neighbouring properties, but no significant harm from overshadowing or overbearing impact had been identified. To support mitigation of overlooking neighbouring properties, members were referred to condition 5 in which obscure glazed windows were proposed. The Case Officer noted the need for conditioning the balcony screen and updated members on additional condition 8 which referred to the boundary fence.

The officer’s presentation included images of the existing parking arrangements. Members were informed that included in the proposal was to replace the existing sloped drive with level parking which would allow two off street parking spaces. The Highways Authority did not identify any harm to highway safety, and it was deemed acceptable. The officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions including:

8. Prior to the first use of the ground floor extensions hereby approved, a close board boundary fence to increase the overall height of boundary enclosure on the western boundary to 2m, from the point adjacent to the front elevation of no. 11A to the rear boundary, shall be erected and thereafter maintained.

Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity.

9. Within 1 month of garage being blocked up, the parking spaces shall be constructed and made available in accordance with plan 22150-00-17. Thereafter, these areas must be permanently maintained; kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site in the interest of highway safety.

Public Participation

A local resident spoke in objection to the proposal. He did not accept the planning officer’s report and felt as though they had ignored the reality of the site. Mr Farrant felt that if granted, the development would be severally intrusive to his neighbouring property and would not have been in keeping with the character of the area, nor would it reflect the street scene.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Conversion of the garage to a studio ancillary to the dwelling and construction of an extension to proposed studio, store and patio. Alterations to rear of property. Surface front garden area. Install air conditioning unit.

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 existing, extant approval and proposed elevations were shown. Images from within the plot as well as views looking towards the proposal from neighbouring properties were included. Members were informed of the proposed building materials, noting wood cladding on the frontage and resin bonding gravel to replace the soft landscape at the front. Officer’s felt that the modest front garden made a limited contribution to the character of the area and therefore the proposal could be accommodated and integrated into the street scene. Impacts regarding neighbouring amenity were explained, particular detail was given to parking was as officers had identified that there was only one viable parking space due to the need to retain access to the neighbouring drive. The highways team did not have any objections regarding highway safety, but the proposal was contrary to policy I2 of the Purbeck Local Plan which required adequate parking to be provided. The officer advised that notwithstanding the policy position, having regard to the fall back provided by the extant position which could have still been implemented, she were unable to recommend refusal on the grounds of loss of amenity and insufficient parking provision.

Images of the site showed an attractive cottage character. There was no flood risk identified and a noise assessment had been carried out which identified that the air conditioning unit would not have impacted neighbouring amenity. The officer recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Mr Heaton, a neighbour, spoke in objection to the proposal. He felt that the application was flawed as it was a 5-bedroom home with only one parking space. He considered that  the proposal failed to meet parking standards and if approved it would create a dysfunctional access to the property. Mr Heaton didn’t object to the building; however, he highlighted the garages should be converted without alternative parking provision. He felt that the fence next to the site could have been inset to allow for additional parking. One space was not acceptable, it would have constricted access. The proposal should meet parking requirements and without sufficient parking, he felt that the proposal should  be refused.

Mr Vincent, a neighbour, spoke in support of the proposal. He explained to members that he had lived on The Greenfor over 19 years. He explained that the existing garages were too small, and cars had been parking outside. Mr Vincent highlighted flooding and raised concerns regarding comments raised by the Parish meeting which he believed were based on one person’s opinion and not representative. He hoped the committee would support the officer recommendation.

The agent addressed the committee and explained the alterations. Mr Carter also raised concerns about the parish meeting’s  objection, stating that the application had only been briefly raised at theParish meeting. He confirmed that permanable materials were proposed for the front  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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.