Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Cllr P R A Hall for item 6a (am session).

To receive information on any changes in the membership of the Committee.

Note – When a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the relevant Political Group Leader (or their nominated representative) may, by notice to the Monitoring Officer (or their nominated representative) prior to the meeting, appoint a substitute member from within the same Political Group. The contact details on the front of this agenda should be used for notifications. 

There were no substitute members.

Councillors are requested to declare any interests on items included in this agenda. Please refer to the workflow on the preceding page for guidance.

Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.

None

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting held on 18 February 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2021 were approved for signing as a correct record.

To receive any requests to speak on planning applications which the Planning Committee is considering at this meeting.

Please Note: In accordance with Paragraph 13 of the Protocol for Public Statements, the Chairman has agreed that the number of public statements relating to the application referred to at agenda item 6a be increased, with a maximum of 6 statements from objectors and 6 statements from applicants/supporters, each statement consisting of no more than 450 words.

The deadline for the submission of requests to speak is 12 noon on Wednesday 17 March 2021. Requests should be submitted to Democratic Services using the contact details on the front of this agenda.

Further information about how public speaking is managed at virtual meetings is contained in the Protocol for Public Speaking at Planning Committee which is included with this agenda sheet and is available on the Council’s website at the following address:

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/documents/s18186/Protocol%20for%20Public%20Statements%20at%20Planning%20Committee.pdf

Note: The public speaking procedure is separate from and is not intended to replicate or replace the procedure for submitting a written representation on a planning application to the Planning Offices during the consultation period.

There were a number of public statements received on planning applications considered by the Planning Committee. In accordance with the Protocol for Public Speaking, the Democratic Services Officer read out the written statements before the Chairman invited those Ward Councillors who had requested to speak to address the Committee.

To consider the planning applications as listed below.

See planning application reports circulated at 6a-6e, as updated by the agenda addendum sheet to be published on Wednesday 17 March 2021.

Councillors are requested where possible to submit any technical questions on planning applications to the Case Officer at least 48 hours before the meeting to ensure this information can be provided at the meeting.

The running order in which planning applications will be considered will be as listed on this agenda sheet.

The Chairman retains discretion to propose an amendment to the running order at the meeting if it is considered expedient to do so.

Members will appreciate that the copy drawings attached to planning application reports are reduced from the applicants’ original and detail, in some cases, may be difficult to read. The submitted drawings can be viewed by using the relevant planning register for this meeting, online at:

https://planning.christchurchandeastdorset.gov.uk/search.aspx?auth=1&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

https://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/planningbuilding/CurrentPlanningApplications/PlanningApplicationRegister.aspx

https://www.poole.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning/planning-applications/find-a-planning-application/

Councillors are advised that if they wish to refer to specific drawings or plans which are not included in these papers, they should contact the Case Officer at least 48 hours before the meeting to ensure that these can be made available.

Development Plans for the BCP Council area are available to view online at:

https://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/planningbuilding/PlanningPolicy/Local-Plan-Documents/Local-Plan-Documents.aspx

https://www.poole.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-guidance/

https://www.christchurch.gov.uk/planning-buildings-land/planning-policy/christchurch/christchurch-borough-council-local-plan.aspx

The Committee considered planning application reports, copies of which had been circulated and which appear as Appendices A – D to these minutes in the Minute Book. The update sheet in relation to the applications appears as Appendix E to these minutes. The Committee considered the planning applications as set out below:

(Bearwood and Merley)

APP/19/00237/P

Hybrid planning application seeking:

Full permission for the demolition of No. 94 Magna Road, construction of primary access roads, formation of multifunctional open spaces, reprofiling to allow for construction of primary surface and foul water infrastructure, installation of mains services and formation of development platform;

in support of:

Outline permission for the phased development of up to 695 new homes, a community hub comprising retail uses (A1/A2/A3), flexible workspace (B1), community uses (D1/D2) and a 60 bed care home

(Bearwood and Merley)

APP/19/00237/P

Hybrid planning application seeking: Full permission for the demolition of No. 94 Magna Road, construction of primary access roads, formation of multifunctional open spaces, reprofiling to allow for construction of primary surface and foul water infrastructure, installation of mains services and formation of development platform;

in support of: Outline permission for the phased development of up to 695 new homes, a community hub comprising retail uses (A1/A2/A3), flexible workspace (B1), community uses (D1/D2) and a 60 bed care home

Representations

Ø   IN OBJECTION

v  Stephanie Thorne

v  Marion Pope

v  Gail Lankstead

v  Duncan Ellis

v  Phil Looker

v  Leslie Legg

Ø   IN SUPPORT

v  Brett Spiller

v  Ian Girling

v  Dan Wilson

v  Stephen Jenkinson

v  Ian Mariner

v  Sarah Pasco

Ø   WARD COUNCILLORS

v  Cllr David Brown

v  Cllr Marcus Andrews

v  Cllr Richard Burton

RESOLVED that the application be delegated to the Head of Planning to GRANT permission with the following conditions, which are subject to alteration/addition by the Head of Planning Services provided any alteration/addition does not go to the core of the decision and the completion, signing and sealing of a Section 106 agreement.

Voting:

For – Unanimous

(Bournemouth Central)

7-2019-1179-BG

Erection of a mixed-use residential development comprising four blocks (211 flats) on the north and east side of existing car park, ranging in height up to 12 storeys (plus lower ground levels) and a flexible Class A1/A3/Sui Generis (mixed A1/A3 Coffee Shop) unit at ground level. Realignment works to existing service access road from Richmond Gardens, cycle parking, disabled parking, associated refuse/recycling storage, public realm improvement works and landscaping (inc. removal/works to existing trees). Alterations to existing public car park including alteration to existing vehicular access to car park and addition of cladding to the eastern elevation.

This item was deferred.

(Mudeford, Stanpit & West Highcliffe)

8/19/1172/FUL

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 26 residential units comprising houses and apartments, associated car parking, landscaping and associated works.

Cllr P R A Hall joined the meeting at this point, having given apologies for the first item.

(Mudeford, Stanpit & West Highcliffe)

8/19/1172/FUL

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 26 residential units comprising houses and apartments, associated car parking, landscaping and associated works.

Representations

Ø   IN OBJECTION

v  Steve Alves

v  Nigel Brooks (Councillor of adjoining ward speaking as objector)

Ø   IN SUPPORT

v  Peter Lamb

Ø   WARD COUNCILLORS

v  Lesley Dedman

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED permission, contrary to the recommendation set out in the report.

Reason for decision:

It was considered that the scheme was unacceptable in terms of its siting, scale, height and bulk, which would be out of character and overly prominent in context of its coastal position.  It was also considered that the scheme was prejudicial to the long term retention of protected trees and therefore detrimental to the character and appearance of the area due to extensive tree loss. The committee highlighted that through the mitigation methods utilised to protect nature, there would be inadequate residential standards for future occupiers of the development. Members noted that whist the applicant’s agent had referred to discussions with the council’s housing team to provide an off-site solution for affordable housing, they did not consider this adequate to mitigate the other issues raised. Further to this, there was also no contribution to heathlands identified, which was required as part of the adopted SPD.

In considering the above, the committee concluded that the proposed scheme was contrary to policies HE2, HE3, ME1, LN3, the NPPF and the Dorset Heathlands SPD 2020-25 and should therefore be refused planning permission.

Voting:

For – 11         Against – 4              Abstentions – 0

(Boscombe West)

7-2020-8500-R

Outline submissionfor demolitionof existingbuilding andthe erectionof ablock of24 flats withassociated access andparking.

(Boscombe West)

7-2020-8500-R

Outline submission for demolition of existing building and the erection of a block of 24 flats with associated access and parking.

Representations

Ø   IN OBJECTION

v Stuart Kirk

v Richard Kells

Ø   IN SUPPORT

v Steve Beynon

Ø   WARD COUNCILLORS

v Cllr Jane Kelly

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission, contrary to the recommendation set out in the report, and authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to draft Conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee and Cllr S Bartlett

Reason for decision:

The layout, height, access and scale of the proposed scheme were not considered to be excessive and therefore acceptable in the context of the character and appearance of the area and was therefore in line with policies CS21 and CS41 of the Core Strategy. The layout was considered appropriate, as was the footprint of the proposed building as it was adequately set back from the road, also in line with CS21 of the Core Strategy. There was no detrimental impact to the setting of the surrounding conservation area and a view was expressed that the scheme reduced the impact on the conservation area when compared with the existing building which was closer to the conservation area.

The residential mix of units was considered to be acceptable, even if it did fall slightly short of what was required by policies BAP1 and BAP6 of the Boscombe Neighbourhood Plan. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF allows the decision maker to depart from the Plan where othermaterial considerations provide justified reason for doing so. It was noted that the associated Neighbourhood Forum had also expressed its support for this application.

It was considered that conditions would be needed to secure the long term retention of trees in or adjacent to the site.

In respect of the NPPF, it was considered in this instance the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of assets of particular importance did not provide a clear reasons for refusing. As such, the tilted balance applies and any adverse impacts of the development do not outweigh the benefits when assessed against relevant policies. Once the tilted balance is applied the lack of a 5 year housing land supply and the presumption in favour of approving sustainable development, including the provision of 24 units, weighed in favour of approving the planning application and was considered to be of sufficient weight to justify a departure from local plan policies relating to the mix of units on this occasion.

Voting:

For – 9         Against – 5            Abstentions – 1

Cllrs S Bartlett and S Bull left the meeting after voting on this item and did not return due to other commitments.

(Christchurch Town)

8/20/0440/OUT

Development of 2 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed properties together with associated parking and access.

(Christchurch Town)

8/20/0440/OUT

Development of 2 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed properties together with associated parking and access.

Representations

Ø   IN OBJECTION

v  Elly Pycroft

Ø   IN SUPPORT

v  Giles Moir

v  Andrew Fielden

Ø   WARD COUNCILLORS

v  None Registered

RESOLVED that the application be granted planning permission, in accordance with the recommendation set out in the report

Voting:

For - Unanimous

The Chairman agreed to accept this additional item of business as a matter of urgency in order to allow the completion of the S106 agreement associated with the above planning application without the need for the application to come back to the Planning Committee for reconsideration.

The Development Management Team Leader reminded the Committee that the application had originally been determined in January 2020 and had a condition that required completion of the S106 agreement within 6 months. This deadline had since been extended by the committee at a subsequent meeting to 31 March 2021, which was not looking likely to be achieved and approval was therefore sought to provide a further extension of six months to allow Planning and Legal officers to conclude this item.

The committee were supportive of this request and it was therefore:

Resolved that Officers be given a further six months to conclude the S106 Agreement with the Applicant.

Voting:

For - Unanimous