Minutes - Planning Committee - 28 August 2008

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

28 AUGUST 2008

The Meeting commenced at 9:30am and concluded at 3pm.

Present:

Councillor Mrs Stribley (Chairman)

Councillor Mrs Walton (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Allen, Mrs Butt, Mrs Long, White, Wilkins and Wilson.

Members of the public present: 30

PC34.08 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

None.

PC35.08 MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 24 July 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

PC36.08 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

All Councillors declared a personal interest in Plans List Items 2 and 9 because Councillors lived close to the Application site*.

Councillor Allen declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5, Plans List items 3 and 6, having received written representations, *2 and *9 and Plans List item 12 as a Member of the Dorset Fire Authority.

Councillor Mrs Butt declared a prejudicial interest in Plans List item 2 because she lived next door to the Application site and a prejudicial interest in Plans List item 12 as a Poole Harbour Commissioner. She declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5 and Plans List items 3, 5, *9 and 12.

Councillor Mrs Long declared a personal interest in Agenda items 5 and 6, having received written representations and *2 and *9.

Councillor Mrs Stribley declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5, and Plans List items 1, 3, 4, 8, 11 and 12, having received written and/or verbal representations and *2 and *9.

Councillor Mrs Walton declared a personal interest in Plans List item 3 and *2 and *9.

Councillor White declared a personal interest in Plans List items 6 and 12, having received verbal representations and *2 and *9. He declared a personal interest in Plans List item 3 and indicated that he would take no part in the discussion or voting because he was a Member of Cabinet which had discussed this matter at its Meeting on 1 April 2008.

Councillor Wilkins declared a personal interest in Plans List items 1, 3, 6 and 12, having received written and/or verbal representations and *2 and *9.

Councillor Wilson declared a personal interest in Plans List item 3 having received written representations, verbal representations on 7 and 11 and *2 and *9.

PC37.08 REVIEW OF NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC SPEAKING ARRANGEMENTS

The Committee considered a Report by the Head of Planning Design and Control Services and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, which proposed changes to the arrangements currently in place for notification and speaking at Planning Committee.

(A)  NOTIFICATION

It was noted that this section of the Report dealt principally with “neighbour notification” where a minimum standard was required, but Local Planning Authorities had the discretion to publicise Applications more widely if they felt the need to do so.

The basic requirement to advertise Planning Applications was by Site Notice displayed on, or near the land, or a letter addressed to the occupier of all those properties that adjoin the Application site.

Poole used direct mailing and sent out approximately 20,000 letters each year and this was considered by the Head of Planning Design and Control Services to be the most effective way of engaging the community in the Planning process.

Applications were also publicised via Residents’ Groups and on the Borough of Poole Website, so providing a variety of media.

The system was considered to be effective and robust but on a number of occasions development had the potential to be more visible and potentially harmful to occupiers living opposite Application sites who were not required to be notified by the Regulations and this anomaly needed to be addressed. Plans A1 and A2 attached to the Report showed where notification would take place under the current arrangements. Plans B1 and B2 showed how that would take place under the current arrangements. Plans B1 and B2 showed how that would be extended so that those occupiers across the road would also be notified directly. This change was seen as a simple remedy for a problem that had disenfranchised a number of individuals and had given rise to occasional complaints. The principle that underpinned this approach would be that any property that had a boundary that overlapped the Application site would be notified regardless of the presence of any road or footpath.

It was also recommended that where a block of flats was defined as being potentially affected by a Planning Application, not less than two Site Notices be used as the notification method. These would be positioned as close as possible to the main entrance into the site. To ensure that these changes did not discriminate against small blocks of flats within established residential areas it was recommended that conventional direct mailing would continue where the number of flats in any block was less than 10.

The current practice of advising all those people who had made representations of the outcome of a Planning Application should now be abandoned.

RESOLVED that the following changes take effect with Planning Applications registered on or after 1 September 2008:-

(a)  Notification of Planning Application by way of direct mailing be continued:

(b)  Publicising Planning Applications by way of the Borough of Poole Website and via Residents’ Groups be continued;

(c)  Notification of Planning Applications be extended to cover properties set out in Plans B1 and B2 of the Report of the Head of Planning Design and Control Services;

(d)  Where a block of flats was defined as being potentially affected by a Planning Application, not less than two Site Notices be used as the notification method. These to be positioned as close as possible to the main entrance into the site from the public highway;

(e)  Conventional mailing to be continued to be used for small blocks of flats within established residential areas where the number of flats in any block was less than 10; and

(f)  The current practice of advising people who had made representations of the outcome of a Planning Application be abandoned.

Voting: (a, b, c, d and e) 7 For 1 Against 0 Abstentions

(f) 8 For 0 Against 0 Abstentions

(B)  REPRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC SPEAKING

The current allocation for speaking at Planning Committee was 5 minutes per side and had been in place for the best part of a decade. It had become apparent over a period of time that 5 minutes was now being seen as a generous allocation of time and many Authorities, including the New Forest District Council, (visited on 9 July 2008), now operated on a 3 minute basis.

On the basis that it was perfectly feasible to deliver clear representations in 3 minutes it was recommended that the time allocated should be amended to allow each side no more than 3 minutes initial presentation but also to provide a one minute “right of reply” prior to the vote being taken. Members would have to accept that there would not be a further opportunity to continue the debate as the whole purpose of the “right of reply” would be to clarify matters that had already been discussed during consideration of that specific Application. These changes would be seen as delivering some minor efficiencies in terms of Committee timekeeping but the key benefit would be an improvement in satisfaction ratings with those who take the time and trouble to attend the Committee to make representations.

The Head of Planning Design and Control Services indicated that there would, very occasionally, be schemes of such strategic significance to the Borough (i.e., the redevelopment of the power station) where it would be appropriate to allow the parties to have a longer period to address the Committee so that all important issues could be covered. It was recommended that, in those cases, 15 minutes be given to each side. As it would be necessary to give advance notice to people of the amended time periods, it was recommended that the Head of Planning Design and Control Services, in association with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, should be given authority to confirm when amended timings would apply.

The Committee supported the aforementioned proposals and considered the arrangements be reviewed after six meetings.

Councillor Sorton requested permission to speak on this item and stated that Planning was an important and emotive matter and most people only attended a Planning Committee once in their lives. He considered that objectors should be given 5 minutes. He felt that people had the right to have their say.

RESOLVED that the Council Efficiency and Effectiveness Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommend that Council adopt the following changes and amend the Constitution accordingly:-

(a)  to reduce the time allowed for representations at Planning Committee from 5 minutes to 3 minutes per side with the addition of a 1 minute period for clarification prior to any vote being taken;

(b)  where a Planning Application was identified as being strategically significant by the Head of Planning Design and Control Services in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, a period of 15 minutes per side be allowed for the making of representations; and

(c)  that these arrangements be reviewed after six Meetings.

Voting: (a and b) 6 For 2 Against 0 Abstentions

(c) 7 For 1 Against Abstention

(C)  PRESS NOTICES

The Head of Planning Design and Control Services referred to the cost of Public Notices (around £15,000 per year).

The Local Planning Authority was required by Regulations to publicise certain Applications. There may well be a case for advertising such matters as departures from the Development Plan but with new channels of communication, the necessity for the traditional public notice columns must now be significantly weakened.

It was recommended that the Local Government Association once again be asked to approach Government to see if changes could be promoted that would reduce pressure on local authority budgets. It was felt important to continue to express concerns about this expenditure, particularly at a time of intense financial pressure on all Local Authorities.

RESOLVED accordingly.

Voting: 7 For 1 Against 0 Abstentions

PC38.08 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Councillor Wilson left the Meeting after the conclusion of Plans List item 7.

The Committee considered the Planning Applications set out in Schedule 1 of the Minutes and dealt with them as indicated therein.

PC39.08 THE OLD RECTORY, 158 BLANDFORD ROAD – DEED OF VARIATION

The Head of Planning Design and Control Services reported receipt of a request to vary the Section 106 Agreement attached to the Old Rectory, 158 Blandford Road.

Planning permission had been granted in December 2005 to erect a single storey detached garage and residential annexe (O5/25341/008/F) and the Agreement contained the following clause:-

“Will not cause or permit the occupation of the Annexe other than by the Owner or Family Member”.

The reason for requesting the variation was because the owners were considering selling the Old Rectory and this restrictive clause prohibited anyone other than the current owners or their immediate family occupying the annexe.

The clause preventing the sale, lease or other use of the Annexe as a property separate from the parent dwelling would remain unchanged.

RESOLVED that the Section 106 Agreement be varied so as to have the following effect:-

“will not cause or permit the occupation of the Annexe other than by the owner; family member or someone principally employed within the grounds of the Old Rectory, 158 Blandford Road, Poole”.

Voting: 7 For 0 Against 0 Abstentions

PC40.08 MATTERS FOR INFORMATION

(i) 75 Canford Cliffs Road

Members were advised of the issue of a Stop Notice at 75 Canford Cliffs Road and noted the action being taken.

(ii)  Appeals Lodged

(iii)  Appeal Decisions

CHAIRMAN

SCHEDULE 1

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE – 28 AUGUST 2008

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Item No: 1

Case Officer: Mr RT Genge

Site: 3-4 Balena Close Poole Dorset BH17 7DB

Application No: 08/14085/021/C

Date Received: 30th June 2008

Agent: Sibbett Gregory 3 Winchester Place North Street Poole BH15 1NX

Applicant: Total Waste Ltd

Development: Change of Use of building to use for the receipt, baling and despatch of waste paper. Erection of brick wall to screen rear yard.

Ward: N 140 Creekmoor

Mrs Lewis, objector, expressed views, including:-

·  Since November 2007 noise pollution had been caused by the dropping of skips, vehicles loading and unloading and engines running.

·  Noise levels had been taken by Environmental and Consumer Protection Services. Stricter working hours had been imposed but were not being adhered to.

·  Drivers were spending the night in their cabs and overlooking residents’ gardens.

·  Litter and rats were a real problem.

·  The current use was inappropriate in this location.

Mr Brown, for the Applicant, expressed views, including:-

·  This was a young company with a ten year re-cycling six days per week.

·  Steps had been taken to improve the site.

·  Working hours were 8:30am to 4:30pm.

·  Cages were unloaded in the building.

·  The serving of a Stop Notice would put the Company out of business overnight. It would default in the lease, 15 people would be out of work and there would be loss of income.

·  A Stop Notice should be used only as a last resort. The Applicant was looking for alternative premises which were not easy to find, but could be achieved given time. The Applicant had viewed other premises yesterday.

·  The Company would give a written undertaking that it would not appeal against Enforcement Action if a Stop Notice was not served. There was no need to serve the Stop Notice immediately. The Applicant asked that the Company be given six months to relocate.

Representations by Ward Councillor Rampton were read to the Committee and contained views as follows:-

·  Numerous complaints had been received dating back to November 2007 which focused on noise and litter. Total Waste seemed inadequate in effecting change to fully comply with specific and general requirements necessary when working so closely to residential properties.

·  Antisocial hours, e.g., 3am were being worked.

·  The condition of the metal fence along the boundary site was deteriorating – caused by manoeuvring of heavy lorries, containers and skips.