Decisions

Reason(s) for Decision

The surrender will facilitate the building being used by a SEND free school.

Alternative Options considered and rejected

N/A

To enter into an agreement for a deed of surrender to end the lease of the academy school at Osprey Quay, Portland.  The agreement is subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.

Reason(s) for Decision

The appointment of an independent examiner is a legal requirement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Localism Act 2011 once a neighbourhood plan has been submitted to the Council.

Alternative Options considered and rejected

There are no alternative options as the appointment of an independent examiner is a legal requirement.

The appointment of an independent examiner for the examination of the Upper Marshwood Vale Area neighbourhood development plan.

Reason for Decision

To allow public views to be taken into consideration when the matter is formally considered by the council

Option(s) considered

Other council services have already vacated the premises. It has taken significant time to identify suitable alternative premises for Registration Services and it is unlikely that there is any reasonable alternative available

Launch of a consultation on a proposal to relocate Weymouth Registry Office from 45 Dorchester Road, Weymouth to Weymouth Library & Weymouth Town Council Offices

Reason(s) for Decision

Since the Cabinet decision to grant a lease for a free school for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities to DET, MHCLG’s position is that it must be the tenant because it is constructing the school and the project is at risk until planning permission is granted.  MHCLG intends to assign the lease to DET once the buildings are developed.

Option(s) considered

N/A

To change the proposed tenant from Delta Educational Trust (DET) to Department of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) – decision date 26 July 2019

Reason(s) for Decision

To provide evidence that the provisions of clause 4.14 of the Supplemental s.106 Agreement dated 16^th June 2005 no longer apply to the property so that it can be sold by the current owner

Other Option(s) considered

None

To provide a certificate providing evidence that the provisions of clause 4.14 of the Supplemental s.106 Agreement dated 16^th June 2005 (the Agreement) no longer apply to 21 Kingfisher Avenue Gillingham and that the Council would not seek to enforce those provisions in the future.

This was required as the property had already been released from those provisions in 2015 but neither the Council nor the solicitors for the parties involved had retained a copy of the decision

The decision was by John Sellgren, the Executive Director of Place who, by virtue of Delegation 152(c) of the Officer Scheme of Delegation of the Constitution, has the power:

Reason(s) for Decision

Neighbourhood Area designation

Dorset Council has received a neighbourhood plan area application from Arne Parish Council (Purbeck area). 

Neighbourhood Planning (General) and Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Regulations 2016, Regulation 5A states that where:

a)    a local planning authority receives an area application from a parish council;

b)    the area specified in the application consists of the whole of the parish council’s area; and

c)    if any part of the specified area is part of a neighbourhood plan area, none of that neighbourhood area extends outside the parish council’s area;

the local planning authority must exercise their powers under section 61G of the 1990 Act to designate the specified area as a neighbourhood plan area.

Regulation 5A also states that where this regulation applies, regulations 6 and 6A (which require consultation) do not apply. 

These provisions are summarised in Paragraph 032 (Reference ID: 41-032-20170728) of the neighbourhood planning section of the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). This states:

“Where a parish council applies for the whole of the area of the parish to be designated as a neighbourhood area, the local planning authority must designate the whole of the area applied for. This includes where a parish applies to extend its existing neighbourhood area to its parish boundary. Exceptions to this are where the area applied for:

·         has already been designated as a neighbourhood area which extends beyond the parish boundary; or

·         forms part of another application that has not yet been determined.”

Other provisions in the 2016 Regulations also indicate that in the circumstances outlined above, there is no requirement for a local planning authority to consult on the proposed neighbourhood plan area. However, the responsibility for designation still rests with the Council. 

Arne Parish Council propose to re-designate land, along Parish Council Boundaries, as a neighbourhood area to address an existing overlap between the designated area of Arne and Wareham. The proposed designated area will not extend beyond Arne Parish boundaries or overlap with other designated neighbourhood areas.   Under the 2016 Regulations there is, therefore, no requirement to consult on the application and the Council “must designate the whole of the area applied for”.

Scheme of delegation

Under the officer scheme of delegation (April 2019), the Executive Director of Place has the power to “make a final determination as to whether to designate a neighbourhood plan area and/or make such an area a business area”.

The Local Scheme of Nomination sets out which functions have been nominated by the Executive Director of Place and any conditions or limitations. This includes the power “to designate neighbourhood plan areas (where the Council must exercise its powers to designate the specified area applied for as a neighbourhood plan area) and neighbourhood forums”. The only condition / limitation is that the “Ward members and the relevant Portfolio Holder being informed”.

Options considered

As a valid application has been received from Arne Parish Council the Council must designate a neighbourhood area.

Business Area

Section 61H of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, requires that when designating a neighbourhood area, a local planning authority should consider whether the area concerned should be designated as a business area. If a business area is designated, local businesses would have the opportunity to be more involved in the formation of the neighbourhood plan and would get an opportunity to vote (alongside registered electors) in the later referendum on whether the neighbourhood plan should come into force. However, this section of the Act also makes it clear that a neighbourhood area should only be designated as a business area if it is “wholly or predominantly business in nature”.

Since Arne Parish is largely rural in nature, it is not considered appropriate to designate the neighbourhood area as a business area.

That the neighbourhood plan area following the parish boundaries of Arne be designated.

Scheme of delegation (April 2019) delegation No 138, additional delegations to the Executive Director, Place.  

The Major Projects Officer set out the report and the application to erect an 80 bedroom Care Home with associated parking, landscaping and amenity space. The application site comprised of 0.75ha of greenfield land and was located to the south of Christchurch Road.   There were a number of protected trees on the site which were proposed to be retained.

The accommodation would be provided over two storeys, with a main entrance to the building facing Christchurch Road and a servicing entrance to the north east of the building.  Vehicular access to the site would be via a new access off of Christchurch Road and parking would be provided at the front of the site for 35 vehicles. The site would consist of community facilities as well as bedrooms.  There was a good level of amenity and the extending roof line would prevent glare and heat build-up in the building.   In conclusion the proposal for the site conformed to the requirements of the general policies of the local plan and overall the proposal represented sustainable development.

Vote to Continue Meeting

As the meeting had reached its three hour limit and in accordance with the constitution, the Chairman interrupted the debate to seek a vote to continue the meeting to its conclusion. This was so proposed by Cllr S Bartlett, seconded by Cllr C Brooks and agreed by the committee.

Public Participation

Cllr Philip Bamborough, Chairman of West Parley Parish Council objected to the application on the ground that this proposal was  speculative and out of keeping with the surrounding area.  The design and scale of the building was overbearing.  There were also concerns expressed regarding traffic safety.

Cllr Andrew Parry, Local Ward Member expressed disappointment at a care home on this site rather than a community use.  This was not what was expected or required by the local community. He felt that the proposed building was of poor design.  If the care home was to provide high dependency level of care, he was anxious that there would be  insufficient car parking on the site.   If members were minded to approve, he asked that they request a CIL for the benefit of wider development for the community.

Oral representation were received from Mr Adrian Kearly as the applicant’s agent. This was a proposed residential nursing care home which was badly needed across Dorset. The home would help reduce bed blocking and reduce accommodation shortfall. There was an increasing need for specialist care in the catchment area and the NHS had raised no objection to the plans.  It was considered that the car park was acceptable and staff would be working shifts outside of normal office hours.  Full CIL contributions were also part of the application.

In response to some of the comments made, the Development Management Manager advised that community use did not preclude a care home on the site. In planning terms this was an acceptable proposal and no other use had been put forward.   The proposal also met the general requirements of the planning policies.

Debate

There were some reservations expressed in respect of the design and size of the building and some members were concerned that it would be overbearing.  It was also disappointing that there was no direct access to the SANG for the residents of the care home as the use of green space was important for resident’s health.

Overall most members felt that the site and proposed building was acceptable development for the area and the increase care provision was an important factor for the local and surrounding areas of Dorset.

It was proposed by Cllr S Bartlett seconded by Cllr A Benton that the application be approved.  Before being put to the vote members discussed amending the following condition “ There shall be no pets on the site at any time” to read “There shall be no pets on the site at any time, with the exception of therapy animals”.

Upon being put to the vote the amendment was carried.

Decision

GRANTED subject to conditions, as amended and as set out in the appendix to these minutes.

Cllr Tooke left the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest to report.

The Chairman of the Committee, Councillor T Coombe had no declaration to make but she read out the following statement to all those present at the meeting:-

“The application from Wyatt Homes to be considered on the agenda related to a site previously allocation by East Dorset District Council in its Core Strategy.  I was previously a member of East Dorset District Council and at the time voted in support of the submission of the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State.

I have taken advice from Dorset Council’s Monitoring Officer about my role as Chairman of this Committee and Whether I should take part in this meeting.  The Monitoring Officer is the Council’s Chief Legal Officer and responsible for ensuring that the Council’s actions are both lawful and uphold standards of behaviour.

The Monitoring Officer has advised me that I have no disclosable pecuniary interest under the Localism Act 2011 to prevent me from taking part in he meeting.  I have been advised by the Monitoring Officer that I have no interest to declare.

In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised that simply having voted on the submission of the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State for examination in public by an Independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, does not prevent me or indeed any other councillor in that position from taking part to decide this specific planning application. I do not have a predetermined view about the application as a result of having voted on the core strategy and I am approaching the application before the committee completely afresh.”