Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Cllr G Farquhar and Cllr S McCormack

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. 

Cllr V Ricketts substituted for Cllr S McCormack for this meeting.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

During the debate on 19a Rozelle Road, for the avoidance of doubt Cllr T O’Neill confirmed that he had not pre-determined the application.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting held on 16 March 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2023 were confirmed as an accurate record for the signing by the Chairman.

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

The deadline for the submission of requests to speak is 10.00am of the working day before the meeting. 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 meetings is contained in the Planning Committee Protocol for Public Speaking and Statements, a copy of which is included with this agenda sheet and is also published on the website on the following page:

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=290

Summary of speaking arrangements as follows:

Speaking at Planning Committee (in person or virtually):

·       There will be a maximum combined time of five minutes to speak in objection and up to two persons may speak within the five minutes.

·       There will be a further maximum combined time of five minutes to speak in support and up to two persons may speak within the five minutes.

·       No speaker may speak for more than half this time (two and a half minutes) UNLESS there are no other requests to speak received by the deadline OR it is with the agreement of the other speaker.

Submitting a statement to Planning Committee as an alternative to speaking:

·       Anyone who has registered to speak by the deadline may, as an alternative to attending/speaking in person or virtually, submit a written statement to be read out on their behalf.

·       Statements must be provided to Democratic Services by 10.00am of the working day before the meeting.

·       A statement must not exceed 450 words (and will be treated as amounting to two and a half minutes of speaking time).

Please refer to the full Protocol document for further guidance.

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 requests to speak on planning applications as detailed under individual items below.

To consider the planning applications as listed below.

See planning application reports circulated with the agenda, as updated by the agenda addendum sheet to be published one working day before the meeting.

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. To search for planning applications, the following link will take you to the main webpage where you can click on a tile (area) to search for an application.  The link is:

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Planning-and-building-control/Search-and-comment-on-applications/Search-and-comment-on-applications.aspx

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.

To view Local Plans, again, the following link will take you to the main webpage where you can click on a tile to view the local plan for that area. The link is:

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Planning-and-building-control/Planning-policy/Current-Local-Plans/Current-Local-Plan.aspx

The Committee considered planning application reports, copies of which had been circulated and which appear as Appendices A to D to these minutes in the Minute Book. There was an interim addendum sheet and an addendum sheet published on 14 and 19 April 2023 respectively which appear as Appendix E and F to these minutes. The Committee considered the planning applications in the order set out below:

Alderney and Bourne Valley Ward

APP/20/00877/F

Erection of a Class E discount foodstore and Class E coffee shop with associated access, car parking and landscaping

Alderney and Bourne Valley Ward

APP/20/00877/F

Erection of a Class E discount foodstore and Class E coffee shop with associated access, car parking and landscaping

Public Representations

Objectors

v  None registered

Applicant/Supporters

v  Barbara Bayliff

v  Alan Williams, on behalf of the applicant

Ward Councillors

v  None registered

RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED in accordance with the recommendation set out in the Officer’s report.

Voting: For – 9, Against – 4, Abstain – 1

Notes:

Prior to this, a move to grant the application was seconded but not carried:

Voting: For – 5, Against – 8, Abstain – 1

Penn Hill Ward

APP/22/01585/F

Demolish existing house and erect 3 detached houses with parking

Penn Hill Ward

APP/22/01585/F

Demolish existing house and erect 3 detached houses with parking

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Chris Marsden

v  Andrew Creedy

Applicant/Supporters

v  Matt Annen on behalf of the applicant

Ward Councillors

v  Cllr Bryan Dion, objecting

In addition, the Chairman exercised his discretion to permit Andrew Harries, a local resident in attendance, to raise a point of clarification arising from the applicant’s agent’s submission.

RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED contrary to the recommendation to grant set out in the Officer’s report, for the following reasons:

1.    Notwithstanding the recognised variations in the surrounding built form, the scale of development, as represented by the overdevelopment of the plot, and mass of the proposed dwellings is considered to be out of character with the local area. The perceived mass of the buildings being greater due to the lack of suitable separation between them such that they would appear as one. The proposal would therefore result in a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the area. As such, it is considered that the scheme would fail to preserve or enhance the area’s residential character, contrary to Policies PP27 and PP28 of the Poole Local Plan 2018. 

2.    The proposed dwellings, due to their proximity and orientation to surrounding residential properties, would result in an overbearing relationship with unacceptable levels of overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly to those dwellings along Earlham Drive. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PP27 of the Poole Local Plan 2018 in that it would result in a harmful impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents. 

3.    The application site is within 5Km of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).  This SSSI is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area) and Ramsar site, and is also part of the Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of Conservation).  The proximity of these European sites (SPA and SAC) means that determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the proposals will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland.  It is clear, on the basis of advice from Natural England that, notwithstanding the CIL contribution, no avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects through Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) has been secured. In the absence of any form of acceptable mitigation it is likely to have an adverse effect on the heathland special features including those which are SPA and SAC features.  Having regard to the Waddenzee judgement (ECJ case C-127/02) the Council is not in a position to be convinced that there is no reasonable scientific doubt to the contrary.  For these reasons, and without needing to conclude the appropriate assessment, the proposal is considered contrary to the recommendations of the Berne Convention Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands, and Policy PP32 and PP39 of the Poole Local Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

Westbourne and West Cliff Ward

7-2022-7797-AW

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a new hospital building comprising treatment rooms, bedrooms, ancillary accommodation, associated car park reconfiguration, generator reconfiguration and associated works

Westbourne and West Cliff Ward

7-2022-7797-AW

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a new hospital building comprising treatment rooms, bedrooms, ancillary accommodation, associated car park reconfiguration, generator reconfiguration and associated works

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Gary Wooding

v  Stuart and Suzanne Otter

Applicant/Supporters

v  Dawn Dawson, on behalf of the applicant

v  Alison Broderick, on behalf of Sarah Langdale, Children’s Commissioning Services, BCP Council

Ward Councillors

v  None registered

In addition, the Chairman exercised his discretion to permit Dr Stephen Turberville, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist at the current provision on site at Pebble Lodge, to provide a more detailed definition of a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), to assist the Committee in its consideration.

Resolved that the application be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report and updated in the Addendum Sheet (and any amendments to those conditions as deemed necessary).

Voting: Unanimous

East Cliff and Springbourne Ward

7-2023-5931-AV

Prior Approval Procedure – Change of use of offices (Class E) to 14 flats (Class C3)

East Cliff and Springbourne

7-2023-5931-AV

Prior Approval Procedure – Change of use of offices (Class E) to 14 flats (Class C3)

No Public Representations had been registered for this item.

The Head of Planning gave a verbal update as indicated in the Addendum Sheet. Following consideration of a written submission from the applicant’s agent which highlighted their view that, because no decision or request for an extension of time was received within the 56 day period, that the proposal therefore had a deemed planning consent, it was now recommended to withdraw the application from the agenda as there was no decision for the Committee to make. Officers would follow up with the applicant regarding the issue around the decision notice.

Resolved that the application be withdrawn from the agenda in accordance with the updated verbal recommendation of the Head of Planning.

Voting:  Unanimous