Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

No apologies for absence were received at the meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 28 May 2020. 

(Please note that the minutes of this meeting will be circulated separately).

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 May 2020 were confirmed.

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 note that the deadline to register to speak at the Area Planning Committee is at 8.30am on Tuesday 9 June 2020.

Please refer to the Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee.

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.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 7 flats with associated access and parking.

The Committee considered an application to demolish an existing dwelling and erect 7 flats with associated access and parking.

An update sheet was circulated to members before the meeting which corrected an error in the report that referred to an incorrect number of flats, details of 2 further representations and a change to Condition 7.

Members were shown a site location plan which included the outline of a previous scheme in 2008 to redevelop No 58 Preston Road into 6 flats approved by the former Weymouth & Portland Borough Council that had now lapsed.  The site of the application under consideration was to the south of that site.

Aerial photos were shown of previously approved flats at 12, 18, 42, 44, 46, 70 and 72 Preston Road on land formerly with detached properties within spacious grounds.  No 66 remained a vacant plot with permission for 7 flats. 

Another aerial photo showed Furzy Close wrapping around the site and the sloping nature of the application site. 

A number of photos were shown of the existing access and dilapidated bungalow and its relationship with the neighbouring properties, including

4 Furzy Close.

The proposed site layout plan included a hardstanding for 10 parking spaces including 3 car port structures, bike spaces and bin storage.

There were a number of significant trees on the site protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) that had been subject to an arboricultural report.  A material commensurate with root protection of the TPO trees would be used in place of tarmac for the hardstanding. It was confirmed that the Tree Officer was content with the protection measures subject to conditions.

Members were shown the proposed elevations which drew comparisons with a previous withdrawn scheme for 8 units which was unduly dominant due to its mass, scale and bulk.  The proposed rear (east) and side (north) elevations were set into the slope of the site.

Floor plans, a roof plan, cross sections, landscaping plan and materials slide were also shown.

The key planning points were highlighted including:-

·         principle of development - presumption in favour of sustainable development

·         design and scale considered appropriate for the site

·         no significant impact on amenity

·         local urban character - previously developed land and viewed in relation to the neighbouring built form

·         highway safety - highways authority raise no objection

·         Nature conservation - Biodiversity Mitigation Plan considered acceptable subject to conditions

·         Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liable.

A number of written representations were received that were read out by the Technical Support Officer and are attached to these minutes.

Responding to comments in the representations concerning road safety, the Engineer (Development Liaison) advised that widening of the carriageway along Preston Road took place in 1995 and the road had also been downgraded to a B road, with traffic signposted towards Littlemoor Road and the Weymouth relief road.  The verge and footway along Preston Road were just under 4 metres wide.  The tree near the access to the site was part of a wide footway with the ability to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

To consider a report by the Corporate Director for Economic Growth and Infrastructure.

The Committee considered an application to divert part of Bridleway 39, Symondsbury at Lower Eype Farm which was being made in the interest of the landowner.   Planning permission had been granted for a new single storey dwelling to be occupied by the applicant and the diversion sought to improve privacy and security of the new property.

The application was presented by the Senior Definitive Map Technical Officer who showed a location plan and photographs of the existing and diverted routes as well as a computer-generated image of the new dwelling. 

Members were informed that Symondsbury Parish Council had objected to the planning application for the new dwelling on the grounds that the bridleway would be affected.

An objection to this application had also been received from Symondsbury Parish Council which was outlined in the report.

Cllr Nick Ireland sought clarification on whether diversion of the route from a right of way onto a permissive path would result in a higher risk that it could be closed.

Members were informed that the diversion of the bridleway would mean that the whole route would become a definitive rather than a permissive route.

Proposed by Cllr Louie O'Leary, seconded by Cllr Peter Barrow.

Decision

That:

a)     The application to divert part of Bridleway 39, Symondsbury be accepted and an order made;

b)     The Order include provisions to modify the definitive map and statement to record the changes made as a consequence of the diversion; and

c)     If the Order is unopposed, it be confirmed by the Council without further reference to the Committee.

d)     If objections are received to the Order which are of a similar nature to those already considered by the Committee, the Order should be submitted to the Secretary of State without further reference to the Committee.

Reasons for Decisions

a)     The proposed diversion meets the legal criteria set out in the Highways Act 1980.

b)     The inclusion of these provisions in a public path order means that there is no need for a separate legal event order to modify the definitive map and statement as a result of the diversion.

c)     This report considers the objection to the pre-order consultation and also the order confirmation tests. If the committee resolves to make an order and no objections are received there would be no further material for the committee to consider.

In the event that objections of a similar nature to those already considered are received to the order, the committee will have already considered the objections in the light of the legal criteria and therefore Dorset Council can submit the Order to the Secretary of State for consideration without further reference to the Committee.

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