Agenda item

The Committee considered application P/VOC/2022/01598; to vary condition 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 19 of PA 3/21/1556/FUL (Redevelopment of Wimborne Market to continuing care community comprising of 67 age restricted apartments, 26 age restricted bungalows, 6 age restricted chalet bungalows, one wellness centre, 9 open market houses, parking , highway improvements and pedestrian link (description amended 24.09.2021 as agreed to include dwelling numbers)) to allow for: amend incorrect plans - include phasing plan - rewording of pre-commencement conditions to refer to phasing at Wimborne Market, Station Terrace, Wimborne Minster.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were. The planning history of the site was detailed too.

Officers provided an illustrative summary of the location and appearance of the development and what it would entail in terms of its characteristics; access and highway considerations; environmental considerations; drainage and water management considerations and its setting within that part of Wimborne Minster and the wider landscape. Viability, flooding, heathland mitigation and affordable housing issues were all given particular consideration. Views into the site and around it was shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary. What contributions were to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement were also detailed.

The proposal was to vary conditions:-

·        2 (approved plans plans),

·        3 (access
construction),

·        4 (turning and parking),

·        6 (biodiversity mitigation),

·        9 (landscaping),

·        19 (acoustic fence).

The reasoning for why this had been assessed to be necessary was explained: in how it was to be delivered - to only provide for the development to be built and occupied in phases, which did not materially change the approved design of the scheme. 

The assessment had considered the acceptability of the proposal in relation to the Development Plan, taken as a whole, and all other material considerations, with all of the foregoing factors being considered in relation to the social, economic, and environmental benefits to be provided by the proposal. It is considered the proposed is acceptable in relation to material planning considerations.

Wimborne Minster Town Council had objected to the application considering that the originals requirements made were for a reason and should remain valid. They saw no reason why this should not be the case. However, they recognised that DC planning officers were best placed to judge this.

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the
presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so
as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision. Some important
points raised, some of which they considered still required clarification, were:-,

·        what access arrangements had been made and what guarantees were in place in use of the industrial estate access given the limitations of Granville Road and Station Road within a densely built residential area

·        the reasoning for how the construction was to be phased and the sequencing of this, including the timescales involved

·        how the current building regulations - and those proposed for 2025 -would be factored in and what assessment had been made of how this scheme aligned with what was to be enacted.

Officers addressed the questions raised – and provided what clarification was
needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, which
the Committee understood to be, and saw, as generally acceptable. Confirmation was given that there would have to be compliance with a construction management plan; HSE guidance; and design and construction regulations - all of which officers were confident would satisfy those concerns raised.

One of the two Local Ward members, Councillor Shane Bartlett, had reservations how access to the site by construction traffic would work in practice, given the limitations of the road network. He considered there should be more assessment of the logistics of how this might be achieved given the access and routing constraints around that part of Wimborne. He provided his own thoughts on how this might be best achieved and, particularly, that Granville Road should only be used in the final phasing. Other members had concerns about the phasing aspect of the development and the practicalities of this being achieved satisfactorily.

Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent
issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the
provisions of the application.

From debate, the Committee considered the permission granted in respect of PA 3/21/1556/FUL to still be acceptable, but that the application needed more assessment as to how the construction management plan – which was yet to be finalised – would provide for access for construction traffic and how the development’s phasing and sequencing would be achieved in practical terms and that these matters should be addressed before they were able to reach a decision. On that basis 

in being proposed by Councillor Toni Coombs and seconded by Councillor Shane Bartlett, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed, unanimously, to defer further consideration of the application until those matters were addressed.

Resolved

That application P/VOC/2022/01598 be deferred so as more assessment as to how the construction management plan would provide for access for construction traffic and how the development’s phasing and sequencing could be achieved in practical terms.

Reason for decision

To ensure the development could be delivered successfully.