Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Cllrs M Davies, G Farquhar and 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. 

There were none.

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.

Cllr S Baron reported that due to his discussions with objectors he would not be speaking/voting on the 8 Glenmount Drive application as a committee member but would speak as a ward councillor.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting held on 20 October 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2022 were confirmed as an accurate record for the Chairman to sign.

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 and the Chairman exercised discretion for people to speak remotely on Teams if preferred.

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 C to these minutes in the Minute Book. There was an addendum sheet published on 16 November 2022 which appears as Appendix D to these minutes. The Committee considered the planning applications as set out below:

Newtown and Heatherlands ward

APP/22/00970/F

Construction of a floodlight 3G synthetic pitch with sports fencing, spectator area, access paths, wildlife bund, temporary haul road and additional cycle shelter/hoops. 

The Chairman reported that the applicant had requested the application be deferred for the following reasons set out in the addendum:

The applicant is seeking further discussion with Natural England & the Council’s Biodiversity Officer in respect of the proposed condition restricting operation of the floodlights in the summertime period. Intention is that the application be brought back to the December meeting.

A Committee member expressed frustration at late notice of deferrals once the agenda was published.

It was also noted that the correct ward of ‘Alderney and Bourne Valley’ had been listed in the addendum.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for the reasons stated in the addendum.

Voting: Unanimous

Boscombe East and Pokesdown Ward

7-2022-6598-G

Demolition of existing house and erection of 4 dwellings with associated access and parking 

Boscombe East and Pokesdown Ward

7-2022-6598-G

Demolition of existing house and erection of 4 dwellings with associated access and parking

Public Representations:

Objectors

v  Dr Robert Wilson

v  Dr Elkan Kohn

Applicant/Supporters

v  Matt Annen, on behalf of the applicant

Ward councillors

v  Cllr A Jones, in objection

v  Cllr G Farquhar, in objection

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

1.    The existing dwellinghouse is considered to be of local heritage value and therefore its retention should be supported. For these reasons, the proposal would not meet full criteria of Policy BAP1 of the Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan 2019, which does not allow the demolition of existing buildings unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify the development.  The proposed works would also be contrary to the provisions of paragraphs 194, 197, 203, 204 and 208 of the NPPF, and Planning Policies CS21 and CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy (Adopted October 2012).

2.    It is considered that the proposals would be harmful to designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area), Ramsar Site and Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of Conservation).  The failure to make an appropriate contribution towards mitigation measures would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the sites and is considered contrary to Policy CS33 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (October 2012) as well as the provisions of the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD.

Voting: For – 6, Against – 5, Abstain – 0

Note: Cllr F Rice did not participate or vote as she was not present for the whole duration of the application being considered.

Parkstone ward

APP/22/00240/P

Demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of 1 pair of semi-detached dwellings and 1 detached house

Parkstone Ward

APP/22/0240/P

Demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of 1 pair of semi-detached dwellings and 1 detached house.

Public Representations:

Objectors

v  Ruth Forester (on behalf of herself and Marlene Trent)

Applicant/Supporters

v  Darryl Howells, on behalf of the applicant

Ward councillors

v  Cllr S Baron, in objection

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

1)    The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of a protected tree (TPO16) which is of significant amenity and ecological value to the local and wider community. As such, it would be contrary to Poole Local Plan Policy PP27 part 1b (2018).

2)    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 (November 2018). 

Voting: Unanimous

Note Cllr S Baron did not participate as a committee member and did not vote.

The Chairman reported that he had agreed to take an item of urgent business in relation to above planning application in order to ensure that the extension of time agreed with the applicant could be met.

On 22 September 2022 the Committee resolved in respect of the application “that Planning Permission be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant, contrary to the recommendation in the officer report, subject to the Head of Planning preparing a S106 agreement and appropriate conditions in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee, Councillor T Trent in his capacity as Ward Councillor, and Councillor T O’Neill”.

The Committee was advised that following subsequent discussions it was considered that the planning conditions (along with a S278 agreement) were sufficient to deal with highways matters without the need for a S106 agreement. This was in accordance with Government guidelines. The Chairman advised that the planning conditions had now been agreed.

The Committee confirmed without dissent that it was content with the updated position.

To consider, amend as required and agree a revised protocol for public speaking / statements at Planning Committee.

The Senior Solicitor presented an updated protocol for public speaking and statements.

The Committee noted that there was little change to the protocol in material terms other than to amalgamate the Part A and Part B sections of the previous protocol following the Covid-19 pandemic. The Senior Solicitor drew attention to a number of minor amendments/consolidations and explained the rationale for these. He also proposed the following changes to wording in the protocol to provide greater clarity:

Paragraph 11.1 – Add full stop after the word ‘equipment’. Start next sentence with the phrase ‘In circumstances other than a wholly virtual meeting this would be...’

Paragraph 13.2 – Remove the words ‘attend and’, ‘or remotely’ and ‘in person’.

Committee members queried the provisions in Paragraph 10.2 around the use of supporting material, specifically the requirement to submit any material to the Council by the date of agenda publication. It was explained that this provision was intended to ensure fairness and would apply to all parties. The Committee agreed that it would be helpful for this requirement to be publicised in advance so people were aware, for example on the planning application pages on the website.

It was confirmed that the protocol included the provision for the Chair to exercise discretion on the number of speakers and time allowances in the case of major/significant applications.

RESOLVED that the Protocol for Public Speaking/Statements at Planning Committee, as amended at Paragraphs 11.1 and 13.2 above, be adopted.

Voting: Unanimous

To consider, amend as required and agree a protocol for receiving pre application presentations at Planning Committee.

Note: The provision to receive pre application presentations at Planning Committee will be subject to Council approving the appropriate delegation.

The Senior Solicitor presented a protocol which had been prepared for the Planning Committee to receive pre application presentations at future meetings.

The Committee was reminded that the principles and ground rules for receiving pre application presentations had been previously discussed with committee members.

It was confirmed that the request for a pre application presentation could be initiated by the prospective developer or by the Planning department

RESOLVED that the Protocol for Planning Committee in relation to Pre Application Presentations be adopted.

Voting: Unanimous