Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs G Farquhar, T O’Neill and Dr F Rice.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting held on 21 July 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 July were signed and confirmed as a correct record.

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 12 noon one 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

Part A of the Protocol will apply to this meeting of the Planning Committee, summarised 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.

*The Chairman has agreed to exercise his discretion to enable speakers to join the meeting remotely on MS Teams if preferred. For further information please contact Democratic Services.

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 12noon one 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 considered by the Planning Committee. The Chairman exercised his discretion as permitted by the Protocol for Speaking/Statements to allow those who wished to address the committee directly, to do so virtually via Microsoft Teams if they preferred.

To consider the planning applications as listed below.

See planning application reports circulated at 6a-6g, as updated by the agenda addendum sheet to be published on 17 August 2022

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 E to these minutes in the Minute Book. There was an addendum sheet published on 17 August 2022 which appears as appendix F to these minutes. The Committee considered the planning applications as set out below:

Westbourne and West Cliff Ward

7-2021-4988-AQ

Erection of a replacement extraction flue with associated ducting (existing unauthorised).

West Cliff and Westbourne Ward

7-2021-4988-AQ

Installation of a replacement extraction flue with associated ducting and plant equipment, installation of 5 fan units in acoustic housing and replacement boundary fence – Existing unauthorised (amendment to fencing and acoustic enclosures).

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Paul Witcombe (written statement)

v  Kelly Mather (via MS Teams)

Applicant/Supporters

v  Eldon James

Ward Councillors

v  None

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation set out in the Officer report, as updated by the committee addendum sheet.

Voting:

For – 10                     Against – 2

Westbourne and West Cliff Ward

7-2021-4988-AT

Partial demolition of existing hotel buildings, alterations and erection of extensions to northern hotel elevation to provide hotel bedrooms, spa and fitness facilities, restaurant and associated terrace, erection of garden restaurant, installation of new outdoor swimming pool, formation of car parking spaces and associated works.

West Cliff and Westbourne Road

7-2021-4988-AT

Partial demolition of existing hotel buildings, alterations and erection of extensions to northern hotel elevation to provide hotel bedrooms, spa and fitness facilities, restaurant and associated terrace, erection of garden restaurant, installation of new outdoor swimming pool, formation of car parking spaces and associated works.

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Margaret Mooney (written statement)

v  James Cain (written statement)

Applicant/Supporters

v  Andrew Emery

v  Eldon James

Ward Councillors

v  None

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation set out in the Officer report, as updated by the committee addendum sheet.

Voting:

For – 10                     Against – 2

Highcliffe and Walkford Ward

8/22/0354/OUT

Sever the land to the rear of Nos. 80 & 82. Demolition of existing property No. 84 and construction of 5 x 3 bed dwellings and 1 x 4 bed dwelling with associated access and parking.

Highcliffe and Walkford Ward

8/22/0354/OUT

Sever the land to the rear of Nos. 80 & 82. Demolition of existing property No. 84 and construction of 5 x 3 bed dwellings and 1 x 4 bed dwelling with associated access and parking.

Public Representations

Objectors

v  John Purves (written statement)

Applicant/Supporters

v  Matt Stevens

Ward Councillors

v  Cllr Lesley Dedman

A move to grant planning permission in line with the Officer recommendation was LOST

Voting:

For – 4                       Against – 7                Abstentions – 1

Following discussion around reasons for refusal, it was then moved, seconded and:

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused, contrary to the recommendation detailed in the Officer report for the following reasons:

v  Contrary to Policy ME1 – the proposed mitigations would not adequately protect the biodiversity within the site.

v  Contrary to Policies KS11 and KS12 – the development would give rise to overspill parking in the immediate area which would adversely impact highway safety.

Voting:

For – 10                     Against – 2

East Cliff and Springbourne Ward

7-2021-25256-A

Outline consent for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a block of 9 flats with cycle & bin stores.

East Cliff and Springbourne Ward

7-2021-25256-A

Outline consent for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a block of 9 flats with cycle& bin stores.

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Charlotte Curtis (written statement)

v  Roland Hitchcott (written statement)

Applicant/Supporters

v  Matt Annen

Ward Councillors

v  Cllr Roberto Rocca

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted in line with the recommendation as set out in the Officer’s report and updated by the committee addendum sheet.

Voting:

For – Unanimous

Christchurch Town Ward

8/21/1147/HOU

First Floor Extension including south facing balcony.

Christchurch Town Ward

8/21/1147/HOU

First Floor Extension including south facing balcony.

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Kim Blunt

v  Brett Jones

Applicant/Supporters

v  Phillipa Waterhouse

Ward Councillors

v  None

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused, contrary to the recommendation as set out in the officer report for the following reasons:

v  Contrary to Policies HE2 and H12 due to its overbearing relationship to neighbouring properties and impact to the amenities of existing and future occupiers. The proposal is out of character of that in the immediate locality in terms of its overall scale and design.

Voting:

For – 8                       Against – 4