Agenda item

Erection of 1no. dwelling (outline application to determine access & layout).

With the aid of a visual presentation, including site location plans, aerial photographs and proposed layout plans, the planning officer Jamie Francis identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. Members were shown the location of the site, which is in a preferred area for housing within the spatial strategy of the local plan and is within walking distance of the train station and local bus stops. The surrounding area was described as predominantly residential in character, with mainly 1970s housing estates located to the south. Photographs of the site and neighbouring properties were displayed, illustrating the site’s position within the street scene.

 

The planning officer explained that the proposal was divided into two parcels of land. The site context was outlined, including the existing dwelling on the site, views from the rear of the property, and the current garden area. Planning history relevant to the site was also presented. Existing and proposed site plans were shown, together with details relating to the proposed parking arrangements and the scale and appearance of the development. Members were further advised that the site lay within the Poole Harbour nutrient neutrality catchment area. The impact upon heritage assets had also been assessed, with officers concluding that the proposal would cause no harm to heritage assets. No objections had been received in this regard.

 

The planning officer confirmed that Dorchester Town Council had raised no objection to the application and that five objections had been received from members of the public. In relation to highways matters, the proposed access from Maiden Castle Road was explained. Members were advised that the road was subject to a 30mph speed limit and that the required visibility splays were 43 metres in both directions. The Case Officer noted that existing traffic-calming measures acted as a deterrent to vehicle speeds and that the Highway Authority had raised no highway safety concerns.

 

The character of the area was discussed, with the planning officer explaining that development on the northern side of the street generally followed a defined building line, whilst development on the opposite side was less linear in nature.

 

Members also considered the impact on trees. The planning officer advised that the Council's Tree Officer had not sought to make a Tree Preservation Order in respect of the tree on the site. Whilst the tree was considered to have amenity value, the Tree Officer had recommended that an arboricultural impact assessment be undertaken. Members were advised that there was no intention on the part of the Council to formally protect the tree and that its presence was not considered detrimental to the overall planning assessment. The submitted plans showed the tree being retained and it was anticipated that it would remain unharmed by the development.

 

The planning officer explained that Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements no longer applied to developments on sites smaller than 0.2 hectares. However, as the application had been submitted before 6 August 2026, it remained subject to the earlier BNG requirements and would need to achieve compliance through the purchase of biodiversity credits.

 

Members were further advised that the site lay within the Poole Harbour nutrient neutrality catchment area. The impact upon heritage assets had also been assessed, with officers concluding that the proposal would cause no harm to heritage assets or the wider conservation area. No objections had been received in this regard.

 

The Transport Development Liaison Manager, Susan Hetherington addressed the Committee and commented on the proposed access arrangements, stating that the forward visibility available at the site was appropriate and sufficient.

 

 

Public Participation

Cllr Fry, Ward Member

 

He objected to this application for the following reasons:

 

1. Overdevelopment and cramped form of Development

 

The application represents an over intensive development in restricted front garden. It would result in a cramped, development out of character with the already established

street scene and building line, causing a loss of privacy for both properties.

 

2. A property built in this location would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, front gardens and space which are part of the characteristics of this estate which was built in the 1970’s and would change the character of the area.

 

4. I know that Highways have not objected, but Maiden Castle Road is a very busy road linking Weymouth Avenue (traffic arriving from the East & South) with Thomas Hardy school and the Hospital and the reverse, there is already a traffic chicane to slow traffic, visitors to the property will create congestion and a block on an already busy road.

 

5. This proposed development would land grab the garden, the NPPF says that Local Authorities should resist inappropriate development of residential garden where it would cause harm to the local area.

 

6. A previous application was made for an extension on the same site, but this is

completely different to a detached property.

 

7. Loss of garden will increase surface water run off on an estate already prone to

flooding further down.

 

8. For information, please see See Google Maps of 2009 to give a flavour of how cramped the site would be as later editions the hedge have grown to hide the view

 

 

Members questions and comments

• Members sought clarification regarding the tree on the site
• Members raised concerns regarding highway safety, particularly the visibility available when vehicles exited the proposed driveway onto the highway.
• It was noted that the proposed access would be located adjacent to a chicane, where vehicles would be expected to travel at reduced speeds and give way where necessary. Members commented that, given the traffic-calming measures in place, they did not consider the access arrangements to present a significant highway safety issue and were satisfied with the available sightlines.
• Members further observed that the traffic-calming features and dropped kerbs in the vicinity would help to moderate vehicle speeds and did not consider these arrangements to give rise to any concerns.
• One member stated that they had no objection to the proposal, considering that it would provide an additional dwelling within a popular residential area. Whilst acknowledging that the road could be busy at times, they did not believe this justified refusal of the application and therefore proposed that planning permission be granted.
• A member reiterated concerns regarding the tree and its contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene. However, they acknowledged that the submitted plans provided for the retention of the tree and accepted the proposal on that basis.

 

In response to questions from Members:

 

The planning officer advised that the tree is not protected by virtue of being within a conservation area, and therefore the tree could be removed without the Council’s oversight.

 

The Development Management Area Manager (North), Hannah Smith advised that it would be possible to impose a planning condition requiring details of tree protection measures to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. Such details would include the extent of the protected area around the tree and the measures to be implemented during construction to safeguard its health and stability.

 

Members were informed that, whilst protection during the construction phase could be secured through planning conditions, the long-term protection of the tree would be more difficult to control. Officers acknowledged that the tree made a positive contribution to public amenity and the character of the 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 GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Major, and seconded by Cllr Ridout.

 

Decision: To grant planning permission in accordance with the officer’s recommendation plus an additional conditional requested by members regarding the protection of the Beech tree during construction. 

 

Prior to the commencement of any development hereby approved, all beech trees shown on approved site plan to be retained, shall be fully safeguarded in accordance with BS 5837:2005 (Trees in relation to construction - recommendations) or any other Standard that may be in force at the time that development commences and these safeguarding measures shall be retained for the duration of construction works and building operations. No unauthorised access or placement of goods, fuels or chemicals, soil or other material shall take place within the tree protection zone(s).

 

Reason: To ensure that trees and hedges to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period and in the interests of amenity.

 

Prior to the commencement of the development above damp course level, a scheme for the maintenance and replacement as necessary of the beech tree for a period of not less than 5 years shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. 

 

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.