Agenda item

Erection of community hub/cafe building with offices over, associated car parking & associated public amenity park.

The Case Officer updated members that there had been an additional amendment to condition 6.

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. Members were informed that the application had been resubmitted to address the previous reasons for refusal. Photographs of the proposed block and floor plans, montages of the proposed scheme and images of the surrounding area were shown. The proposal was modest and had carefully utilised the space whilst ensuring the retention of the open green space, hedgerows and trees to mitigate visual impacts. The Case Officer discussed the proposed floor plans in further detail, highlighting that the first-floor plan would have been for flexible use and provided an outdoor seating area. Parking arrangements were also discussed and had been considered to be adequate and would not have had any adverse impacts on road safety. The Case Officer informed members that if the application were to be approved, the scheduled Cabinet meeting in October would determine whether the scheme before members today or the previously approved scheme would be most appropriate and approved. Each scheme should have been considered on its own merit and therefore, was not a consideration for members of the Northern Area Planning Committee.

The location was sustainable, and the proposal was deemed acceptable in terms of its scale, layout, design and landscaping. It was compatible with its surroundings and would not have had any negative impacts on amenity. The development would have provided a much-needed community facility. It complied with the policies of the development plan and there were no material considerations which would have warranted refusal of the application. The recommendation was to grant subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Public Participation

Mr Yeo spoke in objection to the proposal. He made members aware that he was a town councillor and a trustee of Mampitts Charity Plus but was speaking in his own personal capacity. Mr Yeo did not feel as though the application had been submitted lawfully as it had never been presented to a town council meeting and therefore was not considered to be lawful. He didn’t feel as though it complied with the section 106 agreement of the whole estate and was not a sustainable development. Parking had not changed, and he felt that it was dangerous and would have encouraged illegal parking. To conclude, Mr Yeo felt that the building was a poor use of the site, it didn’t meet the needs of local residents and in his opinion was an unlawful application. He hoped members would refuse.

Mr Larrington-White also spoke in objection and explained that he lived near to the proposed site and currently enjoyed looking at the green from his property. He felt that the creation of a community hall would create an increase in urbanisation. This was not what residents wanted and he strongly objected. Mr Larrington-White also highlighted parking and traffic in the area which he felt would have been worsened by the proposal. To conclude, he highlighted that none of the councillors involved lived near the site and did not feel as though the proposal was for local residents. He urged the committee to refuse.

Mr Glennon also lived on Maple Road and spoke in objection. In his representation, he felt that the Town Council had ignored resident views, and a two-storey building would have been detrimental to local residents. He felt that if approved, the development would have urbanised the village green and contributed to illegal parking. Only minor changes had been made from the previously refused application. Mr Glennon referred to the scheme that was approved in March 2024 and urged the committee to refuse a poorly cobbled together town council application.

Mr Hollingshead spoke in support of the proposal. He referred to the previous application which had been considered in March 2024 and highlighted the reasons for refusal based on the grounds that the layout would have created urbanisation of the site. He referred to comments raised by the Highways team and felt that the proposal was exciting and visually pleasing. It reflected the wishes of the community, and it should have been granted.

Ms Elmendorff also spoke in support. She noted that views from residents had been considered and highlighted some which had been made. Particularly that residents felt as though it was an excellent project and were looking forward to the development of the site. The community hub would’ve created a good open space with all profits contributing to numerous charities. It would’ve created a safe space for all people and provided jobs for young people. Ms Elmendorff also discussed how the café would’ve supported local efforts in sustainability through the use of local produce. She hoped members would support the officer recommendation.

Cllr Virginia Edwyn-Jones spoke on behalf of Shaftesbury Town Council. Together they formulated a questionnaire which was circulated to all Shaftesbury households which identified clear requests. Residents wanted a social hub and a café. The Town Council briefed the architect and formulated a design which echoed the essence of the existing development. Cllr Edwyn-Jones also referred to car parking and hoped the committee would vote for approval, supporting the officer’s recommendation.

Members questions and comments

• Clarification regarding whether the bollards were part of the scheme or not.
• Members noted that there had been several objections raised, therefore sought clarification that the proposed application was lawful and complied with policies.
• Members were aware that the application was previously presented at committee in March and remembered it well. They felt that the initial concerns had been addressed and felt that the proposal had a good layout and was a natural surveillance of the area. They could not have seen any planning reasons to warrant refusal.

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 GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Belinda Rideout, and seconded by Cllr Les Fry.

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