Venue: Durweston Village Hall - NDDC
Contact: Sandra Deary 01258 484370 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Code of Conduct
Members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding disclosable pecuniary and other interests.
Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary or other disclosable interest
Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done within 28 days
Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item where appropriate. If the interest is non-pecuniary you may be able to stay in the room, take part and vote.
For further advice please contact Stuart Caundle, Monitoring Officer, in advance of the meeting.
There were no declarations of interest.
To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee (previously circulated) as a correct record.
The minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
To consider any items of business which the Chair has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be specified in the minutes.
There were no items of urgent business.
Develop land by the erection of up to 17 No. dwellings, form new vehicular access, car parking, extended garden and associated works relating to The Bull Tavern, with roads, parking, landscaping and ancillary works. (Outline application to determine access, layout and scale).
The Major Applications Manager presented the report showing all relevant plans and drawings.
He advised that the examiner of the Neighbourhood Plan had not supported development of this site. However, he considered that a smaller scale development ancillary to the pub was acceptable.
The Major Applications Manager advised that 2 further correspondences had been received in support of the application. One from Mr Woodhouse the applicant who had outlined the benefits to the local community and one from Cllr Batstone, the Ward Member who supported the proposed development.
Oral representation objecting to the application was received from Mr Underwood, local resident. His main concerns were as follows:
Mr Underwood felt that if permission was granted it should be under the proviso that the works to the public house and new car park as set out in the report would be carried out.
Oral representation in favour of the application was received from Mr Fraser (Newton Residents Association), and Mr Woodhouse (Applicant). The reasons for support were:
Cllr Fox spoke in support of the application. He felt that the long term viability of the Bull Tavern should be protected. Cllr Fox felt that the access to the site should be moved and made wider and the junction on Common Lane should be enhanced.
Cllr Fox felt that the community benefits outweighed the Neighbourhood Plan.
Members’ questions and debate
Members discussed the application and considered that support should be given to country/rural pubs as this would help to improve tourism. They considered that the community benefits outweighed the recommendations of the Neighbourhood Plan.
It was proposed by Cllr Fox and seconded by Cllr Dowden
To delegate authority to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and conditions set out in appendix 1 to these minutes.
Reasons for Decision: The proposal:
- Makes a positive contribution to achieving the 5 year housing land supply required in North Dorset
- Provides for the sustainability of and upgrades to The Bull Tavern, bringing with it community benefits
- Does not have a significant detrimental impact of the conservation area, landscape area or Grade II Listed Building (The Bull Tavern)
Erect 25 No. dwellings with garages, form vehicular access.
The Area Lead (Major Projects – Eastern) presented the report, showing all relevant plans and drawings. He advised that the Parish Council had raised objections to the proposal; however there were no other objections from the statutory consultees subject to conditions and planning contributions.
He advised that a previous application for 30 houses on this site had been refused within the past year. It was refused on the grounds of:
This application sought to address these reasons.
The Area Lead considered this to be a sustainable site which bordered the settlement boundary on three sided. He considered that the density of the proposed development fits well with the character of the area, and that the layout, siting, and scale would not result in any seriously detriment harm to amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.
Oral representation in opposition to the application was received from Ms J
Witherden (on behalf of the Parish Council), Mrs Humphrey and Mr Bulley who raised the following concerns:
and overshadowing of existing properties;
these should be pepper potted through the site;
Mr Lofthouse, the agent, spoke in favour of the application. He advised that the reasons for refusal of the previous application had been addressed, with the density of the proposed development reduced to 25 dwellings. In relation to the clustering ... view the full minutes text for item 60.
Change of material to the west facing gable end.
The Area Lead (Major Projects – Eastern) presented the report, showing all
relevant plans and drawings. He advised that a planning application for full length windows had been refused and the refusal upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, however, the windows had been installed. The proposed cladding would conceal part of the windows installed.
Officers considered that the cladding would not adversely affect the appearance of Milton Farm Cottage and would have a neutral effect on the character of the Conservation Area.
Oral representation objecting to the application was received from Mrs Montanaro. She considered that the cladding would be out or character for the area and felt that the full height windows should be removed and the stone wall rebuilt.
Oral representation in support of the application was received from Mr Adlem, agent. He advised that there was a mix of properties in the village, some of which had timber cladding. Therefore, the proposed cladding was not out of character for the area.
Cllr Williams advised that the western elevation of the property was very visible from the public footpath which ran close to the property. He added that local residents were concerned that the cladding could be removed in the future, leaving the full length windows.
The Area Lead suggested that a condition be added to ensure the cladding would remain in place unless planning permission was granted to remove it.
Members’ questions and debate
Members considered the proposed cladding would be significantly out of character for the building which is in the conservation area.
It was proposed by Cllr Ridout and seconded by Cllr Williams
To refuse the application on the grounds set out in appendix 1 to these minutes.
To note the report (attached) of Head of Planning Development Management and Building Control on Planning Appeals.
The Committee noted the report of the Head of Service for the period between 26 November 2018 and 21 December 2018.