Agenda item

Demolish existing residential buildings and erect block of 15 apartments with parking, bin and cycle stores.

An update was provided by the Case Officer as follows:

·       A detailed assessment had now been carried out regarding the previous deferral. The Case Officer confirmed that there had been an oversight that an assessment on paragraph 58 of the NPPF and associated guidance in the NPPG was not included in the previous report. A detailed assessment had now been carried out, resulting in officers updating the recommendation.

·       A letter received from the agent on 7^th March 2023 in connection with this application requests in the event that Members are unable to support the application, that the item be deferred to allow Members time to consider the points raised and to allow the applicant time to provide a full response to the Officer’s report.

The Case Officer showed members aerial photographs and a map of the site. Details regarding screening and impacts on nearby dwellings were also provided. The Case Officer discussed the impact on traffic and included google street images to highlight this. Members were shown the proposed site plans, layout plan for flats as well as allocated parking spaces and site access. The Case Officer informed members of a relocation of a bus stop and post box which was outside the proposed site. Members were also provided with details of the previous site plan and were informed that the applicant had amended the site plan.  Neither Dorset Waste, nor National Highways had any objections to the proposal subject to conditions.

Details regarding the previous concerns relating to viability and assessment of NPPF paragraph 58 was also discussed. The Case Officer also informed members of the applicant’s response to this following the previous committee and how the development didn’t contribute to affordable housing, therefore, the application was contrary to policy..

Public Participation

Melissa-Griffith Jones spoke in objection of the application. She discussed how she had previously been approached by developers and rejected their requests to sell her family home. Mrs Jones discussed the negative impacts that the development would have on neighbouring properties, in particular excessive overlooking, and dangerous site access. She also informed members that there were no other properties in the area like this, therefore the site would stand out and impact the character of the area. She did not believe that the site was economically viable and hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Alan Davies spoke on behalf of the applicant. He informed members that the applicant was disappointed to acknowledge the change in officers’ recommendation and believed further notice should’ve been given. Mr Davies discussed the previous deferral and believed that the applicant had solved previous concerns made, particularly concerns regarding refuse vehicles. Mr Davies was aware that the development couldn’t meet affordable housing requirements but discussed how an agreed sum had been met to compensate this. He urged members to defer the application to allow the applicant time to respond.

Members questions and comments

·       Concerns regarding viability test not being justified. Members raised that the NPPF made it clear regarding affordable housing and stated that the applicant should have met the requirements.

·       Local members commented on the location of the site and access. They informed other committee members that the A31 was a busy road, used by all vehicle users. They requested clarification on the new proposed location of the bus stop and raised their concerns regarding safety.

·       Members discussed the viability assessment which didn’t support the local plan. They believed this should be considered for refusal.

·       Clarification regarding National Highways comments.

·       Considerable risk to the safety of residents and those that use the road.

·       Clarification regarding whether historic collision data had been considered.

·       Members accepted the concerns made from residents and local members.

·       Praised the officer for the detailed report and presentation.

·       Members commented the development not being policy compliant with existing local plan.

·       Confirmation regarding grounds of refusal and the merits of them.

·       Did not believe that the application was compliant with policy HE2. Members requested adding a condition about excessive height and the bulk of the proposed development. They believed the proposed development would not be in keeping with the character of the local area.

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 written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission as recommended,  with the addition of a second reason for refusal, relating to scale, bulk and overlooking was proposed by Cllr Robin Cook and seconded by Cllr David Morgan[UF1] .

Decision: To approve the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.