Agenda item

Erection of 2no. dwellings with associated parking & amenity areas & a new vehicular access (outline application to determine access only).

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 indicative site plan, images looking towards and within the site which identified the boundary were shown. Details of the existing site survey, proposed access and National Cycle and Footpath networks were provided. Members were also informed that the proposal was outside of the settlement boundary and the presentation included details of the principle of development, specifically living conditions, character and appearance as well as highways safety. The Case Officer also discussed Tree Protection Orders and biodiversity impacts. The officer’s recommendation was to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Service Manager for development management and enforcement to grant subject to conditions.

Cllr James Vitali left the room and gave his apologies for the rest of the meeting.

Public Participation

Mr Robinson spoke in objection to the proposal. He highlighted that the proposal was outside the settlement boundary and did not feel as though a need for the proposal had been demonstrated and would set a precedent for further parts of the site in which it was situated. Mr Robinson referred to 5.2 of the planning statement and highlighted that the proposal was rebuilt on original footprint. It would have been an overdevelopment which would’ve had adverse impacts on living conditions. In summary, residents did not feel as though it complied with local polices and was overbearing and intrusive. Mr Robinson urged members of the committee to refuse the officers recommendation.

Mr Williams thanked the officer for his comprehensive report and presentation. He explained that only access was to be approved at this stage. The agent highlighted that the proposal was within a sustainable location, the layout was illustrative, and it was not evidenced that it would have increased flooding. Mr Williams noted that each case should be considered on its own merit and as there were no adverse impacts, permission should have been granted as recommended.

Members questions and comments

• Members noted the history of the site and the previous reasons for refusal, they queried what material planning reasons had changed to warrant approval.
• Confirmation regarding site access.
• Clarification regarding the published Housing Land Supply figures.
• The proposal was outside the settlement boundary and there were no evidenced exceptional circumstances. In addition to this, the proposal was against the NPPF and neighbourhood plan.
• Members did not support the proposal before them and discussed grounds for refusal based on the proposal being situated on a greenfield site outside the settlement boundary of Gillingham nor did it meet the local housing needs. 

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 REFUSE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Sherry Jespersen, and seconded by Cllr Val Pothecary due to the site which lied on a greenfield site outside the settlement boundary for Gillingham. The site wasn’t allocated for housing development in either the adopted Local Plan or more recent Gillingham Neighbourhood Plan. The proposed development would not have met local identified housing needs, nor represent a type of development that would have been appropriate in the countryside, or otherwise have a demonstrable overriding need for a countryside location. The development of the site would have therefore represented an unsustainable form of development, contrary to the spatial strategy of the adopted development plan, specifically Policies 2, 6 and 20 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 2016. It would also conflict the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.

Decision: To refuse the officer’s recommendation for approval.