Agenda and minutes

West Dorset District Council Planning Committee
Thursday, 17th January, 2019 1.00 pm

Venue: Rooms A and B, South Walks House

Contact: Elaine Tibble 01305 838223  Email: etibble@dorset.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

110.

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 or 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.

 

Minutes:

Cllr Horsington declared an interest in item 5 (land north of Broadwindsor Rd, Beaminster) as he was a member of a partnership that had business links with Bugler.

 

Cllr Bundy declared an interest in item 11 The Dorchester Article 4 Direction as he was Chairman of Age UK which had properties that would be affected.

 

 

111.

Minutes

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting, previously circulated. 

Minutes:

The minutes of the last meeting held on 6 December 2018 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

112.

Planning Application No: WD/D/18/000115 - LAND NORTH OF, BROADWINDSOR ROAD, BEAMINSTER pdf icon PDF 155 KB

Outline planning application for residential development of up to 100 dwellings and associated infrastructure (means of access to be determined) 

 

Minutes:

13.02 – 13.41 Cllr Horsington left the room and did not partake in this application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application which sought outline planning permission for a residential development of up to 100 dwellings together with access.   

 

Half a hectare of employment land had been allocated in the wider allocated site, which could still be provided in the north-east part of the allocation; outside the current application site. However, the former employment use adjacent to the allocation, to the east, now had planning permission for residential use and additional land to the south was now proposed for employment use allocation in the Local Plan Review.

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the bus stop locations would be provided as shown on the approved plan, and that the actual type of bus stop would be addressed within the Section 278 agreement.

 

Attention was drawn to the delegated recommendation which includes checking with DCC if the surface water issue also needs to go in the s106; and that the illustrative layout indicates separate locations of the attenuation pond and children’s play are in response to comments made by Beaminster Town Council.

 

In concluding the Senior Planning Officer summarised the main planning issues and the recommended delegation to approve subject to section 106 agreement and conditions.

 

Oral representation was received from Cllr Robin Cheeseman on behalf of Beaminster Town Council.  They had concerns that the employment element could get pushed back and he emphasised that the area needed both affordable housing and employment.  The bus service was failing in the area and local residents were highly dependent on car travel.  He felt the traffic survey that had been undertaken between 8 and 9 am on a week day was misleading.  The A3066 main arterial route could get very busy at weekends and in the summer cycling was unsafe.  He also felt there were questions over the water pressure in the area which he said was low and the foul water drainage.

 

Mr Nigel Jones addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.

 

Cllr Tony Alford as the Local Ward Member offered a further observation that the proposed development site was a gateway to Beaminster and as such should fit in with the town and look attractive, it should be a high quality development which would attract visitors to the town.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to points raised and gave assurance that there was more than sufficient land available for employment use, approval of this application would not compromise employment, additionally land was allocated to the north for employment and there could possibly be more in the Local Plan review.  With regard to surface water drainage, this was dealt with in the report, Wessex Water had been consulted and were happy in principle. 

 

The DCC Highways representative advised that the traffic survey had been done on a neutral day, the need for linking footways had been addressed in the illustrative plan; they could try to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

113.

Planning Application No: WD/D/18/001177 - FORMER STORAGE LAND AND BUILDING BETWEEN, 20A-21 GLYDE PATH ROAD, DORCHESTER pdf icon PDF 387 KB

Change of use to residential (Use Class C3) together with external alterations. 

 

Minutes:

This application had been deferred at the meeting of 15 November 2018 to allow officers to seek advice from the Legal Department to clarify how this site related to the planning permission for the prison site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report which included the update and explained that the original prison site application had a landscaped area numbered 32 which coincided with the garden area of this application.  However, it was permissible and possible to have more than one application on a site, it was up to the developer to decide which one to implement, and therefore members should not refuse this just because it overlapped the prison site application.  The Senior Planning Officer highlighted the small change to the wording of conditions which did not change the overall report.

 

Oral representation was received from Mr David Moss on behalf of Dorchester Civic Society.  He felt that the permission granted included the provision of a footpath and the Officer’s report excluded the main issue that if this application was approved it would prevent the footpath being provided, he felt this was contrary to policies ENV11, ENV13 and DOR3  and would result in only one access to the site.

 

Mr Adrian Fox from City & Country addressed the committee in support of the application. 

 

The Development Manager advised that the footpath was not a requirement of the prison development and that the original application was non relevant to the determination of this application; members must look at the application before them as it stood.  The DCC Highways Officer agreed that the original permission didn’t show any gap through the site to link to the public highway, DCC did not require the pedestrian link, and the limit at which a second access was required was 300 units.

 

The committee members were displeased at the loss of the desired pedestrian footpath access, they felt that people wanted the access through this site but as this was governed by a 300 unit limit they had no legitimate planning reasons to refuse the application.  They may have been reluctant to approve the original prison site application if they had been aware that access through this site would not be achievable.

 

Proposed by Cllr Haynes, seconded by Cllr Gardner

 

Decision: that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

 

114.

Planning Application No: WD/D/18/000820 - 6 CHALKY ROAD, BROADMAYNE, DORCHESTER, DT2 8PJ pdf icon PDF 268 KB

Demolish existing dwelling and erect 6 No. dwellings with parking. 

 

Minutes:

This application which was the subject of a site visit on the Monday proceeding the committee meeting was presented by the Area Manager (Western).  Extant approval for four dwellings had already been granted in 2017, this was a new application for the demolition of the existing property and a development of six new buildings, the access was in the same position and there were no objections from DCC.  The key planning points were highlighted to the committee members.

 

Oral representation was received in support of the application from Mr Giles Moir on behalf of Chapman Lily Planning Ltd.

 

The committee members felt that six properties would result in a little overcrowding and they would have preferred to see an application for five properties which would have been more in keeping with Lytchetts next door and number 12, but there was no legitimate planning reason to refuse the application.

 

Proposed by Cllr Bundy, seconded by Cllr Horsington.

 

Decision; that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

 

Cllr Gardner abstained from the vote as he had not attended the site visit.

 

 

115.

Planning Application No: WD/D/18/001245 - 88 PRINCE OF WALES ROAD, DORCHESTER, DT1 1PR pdf icon PDF 170 KB

Change of use of carpark area to car sales display area and erection of 2.1 metre boundary fence (retrospective). 

 

Minutes:

This was a retrospective application for the change of use of a car park area to car sales display area and erection of 2.1 metre boundary fence.  The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and referred to amended conditions that were circulated.

 

Members were shown google images going back to 2016 which showed the previous planting and an updated view with the tress removed and a proposed soft landscape planting plan.

 

Oral representation was received from Mr Neil Martin in opposition to the application on behalf of the local residents.

He did not feel that the original hedgerow had been overgrown, rather that it was well kept and masked the view of the industrial buildings and the noise from neighbouring properties.  He was not happy that the applicants had gone ahead with the work without permission.  Residents were supportive of increased economy but not the means it was achieved here.

 

Mr Broome, BMW’s representative addressed the members in support of the application.

 

The committee members were disappointed that the application was retrospective and keen to ensure that new planting was carried out as soon as possible, ideally before summer and including specimens that kept their greenery all year round.

 

The Development Manager suggested that the proposal should be a compromise to soften the impact on neighbours whilst allowing the cars to be seen from the road; but if members were not happy with the application before them they could delegate approval to officers to negotiate improvement to the proposed planting.

 

Proposed by Cllr Horsington, seconded by Cllr Haynes.

 

Decision: that the application be delegated to the Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control) to approve subject to:- the submission of a satisfactory revised planting scheme which should include evergreens at both ends of the road frontage and the four trees currently indicated in the middle of the road frontage;

and the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

 

116.

Planning Application No: WD/D/18/002364 - 6 ST KATHERINES DRIVE, BRIDPORT, DT6 3DQ pdf icon PDF 207 KB

Installation of rear flat roof dormer. 

 

Minutes:

The application for the installation of a rear flat roof dormer had been the subject of a site visit on the Monday prior to the committee meeting and was presented by the Planning Officer.

 

The dwelling in question was a uniformed single storey bungalow, it was noted in the report that whilst there was a similar scheme on the opposite side of the road, this was less prominent and did not cause significant detrimental visual impact in the street scene.  The application was recommended for refusal as officers felt that the dormer window would fail to respect the modest character of the bungalow and represented significant additional bulk and massing to the roof which would result in a dominating addition to the property and an incongruous addition to the street scene.

 

The key planning points were highlighted to the committee.

 

The committee did not feel that the application would be overly visible, nor have a detrimental impact on neighbours and the street scene.

 

Proposed by Cllr Legg, seconded by Cllr Potter

 

Decision: That the application be approved, as there was no significant detriment to neighbours or the street scene, subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes which would include a condition requiring that cladding to the dormer should be in a similar tile to the building.

 

117.

Planning Application No: WD/D/18/002112 - WEST BAY COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEME, ESPLANADE TO QUAYSIDE WEST SIDE BASIN, WEST BAY pdf icon PDF 710 KB

The West Bay Coastal Improvements Scheme involves flood defence works within West Bay.

Minutes:

The application for a West Bay coastal improvements scheme including flood defence, beach and caravan park works, was presented by the Planning Officer.  An update paper was tabled which included an amended recommendation, updated consultee responses, withdrawal of some objections and revised conditions as below.  In particular, Symondsbury Parish Council had withdrawn their objection; the dates of planned construction, beach closure and that there would be no work during the peak summer holiday season was confirmed. The works were subject to Environment Impact Assessment Regulations and Habitat Regulations Assessment.

 

Amended recommendation:

 

Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission, subject to:

       Conditions

       Confirmation of compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017

       Confirmation of compliance with the Habitat Regulations Assessment – see 2010 Habitats Regulations – (as amended)

 

ADDITIONAL CONSULTEE COMMENTS

 

NATURAL ENGLAND – CONSULTEE COMMENTS – (EXTRACT) – RECEIVED – 29/11/18

In relation to Habitat Risk Assessment Regulations, Natural England comment as follows:

 

“I would re-assure you that most issues have been addressed but there is still a lack of clarity around modified wave action and impacts to sediment movements/dynamics around the areas of the extended and new stub groyne, proposed re-charge of the beach and the impact of those sediments on the reef.

 

Until we are clear on this matter, Natural England cannot formally comment on the application as submitted to you.”

 

Date: 8/1/19 – comments received from World Heritage Trust via the Jurassic Coast Trust – objection withdrawn.

 

West Bay Coastal Improvements Scheme

 

Extract – Conclusion.

“6. Conclusions

The potential for the West Bay Coastal Improvements to result in significant impacts to the

Outstanding Universal Value attributed to the WHS, including its setting, have been assessed in relation to the critical aspects of the WHS as set out in Table 3 above.

The potential impacts on the attributes, setting and policies of the WHS arising from the construction and operation of the proposed scheme are summarised as follows:

 

·     A localised, permanent, minor adverse impact on the rock structure of the WHS, arising from the excavation of benching into the natural rockhead at the base of the side of East Cliff to enable the proposed rock revetment to be competently tied into the side of the cliff below finished beach crest level.

·     A localised, long-term, minor adverse impact on the stratigraphy of the WHS, arising from the importation of non-native rock and shingle into and adjacent to the WHS.

·     A localised, long-term, minor adverse impact on the natural geomorphological processes of the WHS arising from the construction of coastal defence works at West Beach and East Beach potentially leading to longer-term impacts to the geomorphological processes acting in setting.

·     Localised, temporary, moderately adverse impacts on the experiential setting of the WHS arising from the impacts to the existing landscape and visual resource at West Beach and East Beach during the construction period.

·     Localised, medium-term, minor adverse impacts on the experiential setting of the WHS arising from the impacts to the existing landscape  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

118.

Dorchester Article 4 Direction pdf icon PDF 120 KB

To seek authorisation for themakingand subsequent confirming of an ImmediateArticle 4Direction, for propertieswithinthe DorchesterConservation Area.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

15.40 – 15.50 Cllr Bundy left the meeting and did not take part in this application.

 

The Specialist Services Manager explained that an Article 4 Direction would remove permitted development rights for demolishing and rebuilding walls.  The Conservation area in Dorchester was becoming fragmented and demolition and erection of walls has been carried out that was not in keeping with and damaging to the character of the conservation area.   An Article 4 Direction would not prohibit removal of walls but would require the submission of a planning application to be considered by the Local Authority.

 

If the committee was minded to approve the Article 4 Direction, this would then have to be ratified by Full Council due to possible future compensation implications.  Historic England had carried out a review and out of the 58 authorities with a similar Article 4 Direction in place, none had reported any compensation claims.  If approved by Full Council the Article 4 Direction would be effective and the next step would be to send letters to affected property owners; and after a period of consultation the Article 4 Direction could be confirmed.

 

Proposed by Cllr Jones, seconded by Cllr Potter.

 

Decision:

 

a) That underthe Town and Country(General Permitted Development)Order 2015 as amended, authorisationis delegated tothe Specialist ServicesManagerto makeand subsequently confirm anImmediateArticle4 Direction, in respect of those residential and non-residentialpropertiesidentified in AppendixC.  The Direction will seek to remove the followingpermitted development rights immediately upon the making of the order:

 

Part 2 Minoroperations(Class A) gates, fences, wallsetc

 

A.  Permitteddevelopment

The erection, construction, maintenance,improvement oralteration of agate, fence, wall orothermeans of enclosure.

 

And

 

Part 11 Heritage and Demolition (Class C) demolition of gates, fences walls etc

 

C.  Permitteddevelopment

Any buildingoperation consisting of the demolition of the whole or any part of any gate, fence, wall orother means of enclosure.

 

Class C contains some limitations to this rightsuch as:

 

C.1.  Development not permitted

Development is not permitted byClass Cifthe demolitionis“relevantdemolition”for the purposesof section196D of the Act (demolition of anunlisted etc buildingin aconservation area). Pleasenote that the demolitionof a wallless than 1 madjacent toa highway andless the2 melsewhere, ina conservation area, is not relevant demolitionbut itis development and therefore wouldbe permitted by the above.

 

b)Thatthe decisionisfurtherreferred to the Full Council forfinalapproval given the potential compensationimplications.

 

c)That following the making of an Immediate Article 4, copies of the Directionare sentby post to all owners/occupiers, furtherstatutoryconsultationis carried out andthe Secretary of State notified, as requiredunder the GeneralPermitted Development Order.

 

d)Thatauthorityis delegated to the SpecialistServices Managertofollowing consultation,considerand address any consultation responsesand,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

119.

Urgent Items

To consider any items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

120.

Date of Site Visit

Monday 11 February 2019.

Minutes:

Monday 11 February 2019

121.

Exempt Business

To move the exclusion of the press and public for the following item in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph   of schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Minutes:

There was no exempt business.

122.

Informal Member's Briefings

To receive informal briefings from officers on major forthcoming applications (if any).

 

Minutes:

There were no informal briefings

123.

Questions

To receive questions submitted by members in writing to the Chief Executive and in respect of which the appropriate notice has been given.

 

Minutes:

There were no questions.

Appendix pdf icon PDF 153 KB