|
8. PLANNING MATTERS:
8.1 Applications: 2/2014/0973/HOUSE – Squirrel Cottage, 80 Higher Street, Okeford Fitzpaine, Dorset, DT11 0RQ – Erect conservatory (demolish existing single storey extension) (retrospective). Following discussions Cllr R Corben proposed no objection to this planning application, this was seconded by Cllr Fox and agreed by Council.
2/2014/0974/LBC – Squirrel Cottage, 80 Higher Street, Okeford Fitzpaine, Dorset, DT11 0RQ – Demolish existing single storey extension. Erect conservatory
(regularisation of work). Following discussions Cllr R Corben proposed no objection to this planning application, this was seconded by Cllr Fox and agreed by Council.
2/2014/1061/FUL – Land At E 382047 N 111270, Forum School, Forum School Access Road, Shillingstone, Dorset – Station 1 No. portacabin and erect perimeter fencing to be used as a teaching apiary for bee keeping. Following discussions Cllr Paine proposed no objection to this planning application, this was seconded by Cllr R Corben and agreed by Council.
2/2014/0501/PLNG – Littlebrook Farm, Belchalwell Street, Belchalwell, Blandford Forum, Dorset – Erect horse walker. Following discussions Cllr Frampton proposed no objection to this planning application, this was seconded by Cllr D Burt and agreed by Council.
2/2014/0960/HOUSE – Cookwell, Back Lane, Okeford Fitzpaine, Blandford Forum, Dorset – Erection of side Extension. Following discussions Cllr Paine proposed no objection to this planning application, this was seconded by Cllr R Corben and agreed by Council.
2/2014/0920/FUL – The Fiddleford Inn, Fiddleford Village Road, Fiddleford, Dorset, DT10 2BX – Erect building comprising Manager’s accommodation and additional guest accommodation. Erect ground floor and first floor extensions. Form additional car parking area. Following discussions Cllr R Corben proposed no objection to this planning application, this was seconded by Cllr M Burt and agreed by Council.
2/2014/0921/LBC – The Fiddleford Inn, Fiddleford Village Road, Fiddleford, Dorset, DT10 2BX – Demolish rear extensions and erect single storey and first floor rear extensions. Carry out internal and external alterations. Following discussions Cllr R Corben proposed no objection to this planning application, this was seconded by Cllr M Burt and agreed by Council.
2/2014/1058/HOUSE – Spring Cottage, Back Lane, Okeford Fitzpaine, Dorset, DT11 0RD – Erect replacement dwelling (retaining the existing chapel), with detached carport (including landscaping works). The Applicant advised the Council that a previous application had included a thatched roof. This application would have the same footprint at the current property. The rest of the application would be the same as the previous one. Following discussions Cllr Paine proposed no objection to this planning application, this was seconded by Cllr R Corben and agreed by Council.
8.2 Decisions: 2/2014/0932/CPE – Land At Wessex Park Homes, Shillingstone Lane, Okeford Fitzpaine, Dorset, DT11 0RB – Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use to continue setting out the access works, build up the access way construction, connection to, install kerb laying hardcore and tarmac to base level and new surface water drainage – APPROVED
8.3 Any other planning matters: None
8.4 Updates: Gypsy & Travellers Sites – The Clerk advised that she had written to NDDC attaching emails received from DCC regarding a Covenant on the Land at Conygar Coppice which prevented it being used as an authorised gypsy & traveller site. The following response had been received from Mr I Smith: “ I write in response to your letter of 9 September 2014. My reply has been delayed as I have been away on holiday. I note the views of the Parish Council. The current consultation exercise is based on sites which were put forward for consideration at the previous consultation and the point of the current exercise is to gather views on these sites. The consultation is to examine the suitability of sites as well as their availability and so the consultation is proceeding with the inclusion of Conygar Coppice. Clearly, if the Parish Council feels that there are reasons why the site at Conygar Coppice should not be taken forward for further consideration then it should present its views formally as a response to the consultation. You refer to the copy e-mails regarding the site which you attached to your letter. I have perused these and am aware that there is a restrictive covenant on the land. However, this in itself does not preclude the site from development as there are procedures for removing covenants and I note that in the e-mail of 5 April 2007 the phrase ‘as things currently stand’ is used. I understand that this matter is being explored afresh by the County Council”.
The Chairman advised that when he had spoken to the consultant at the consultation event today, the consultant was unaware of the covenant on the land.
There was some confusion about who owned the land. Cllr Burch confirmed that the land was owned by DCC. However, residents need not be concerned who owned the land, the consultation was to assess the suitability of the site for travellers, how many travellers it would be suitable for and what sort of travellers.
A member of the public raised concerns regarding the site being contaminated. The Chairman advised that the consultant’s report had shown no contamination on the site, however if it was considered that if the site was worth exploring further this would be looked at in more detail and questions would be answered.
A member of the public asked what other sites had been explored. Cllr R Corben listed the other sites being considered across Dorset. The Chairman advised that these sites were extra to the original consultation.
A member of the public felt that the views of people already living on the site should be obtained. The Chairman advised that some of them did attend the consultation today and some were present this evening. He hoped that they would complete the consultation document to ensure their views were taken in to consideration. The Clerk was asked to deliver consultation forms to the site.
A member of the public who was living on site advised that at present there were 16 adults and 1 child. All of the people living on site were happy as they were and did not want the site to change. The Chairman advised that DCC were obliged to provide authorised sites.
A further resident of the site advised that they just wanted common ground to live on. This site was tucked out of the way and allowed them to live as they wanted without any disruption to any neighbours.
A member of the public supported the travellers stating that they contributed to village life, paid their taxes and kept themselves to themselves and were decent upstanding people.
Cllr Corben felt that residents were wary of travellers due to past experiences. He added that the current residents had not caused any problems in the village. He added that if the site was not authorised then the current residents could be evicted leaving the site vacant and open to misuse in the future.
Cllr Paine felt that if the public said yes to the site being an authorised gypsy & traveller site then pitches would be put in, if the public said no then there was a chance that the current occupants of the site could be evicted. It felt that it was important that the site be allowed to stay as it was now.
A member of the public thought that the site should be authorised but allowed to stay as it was now. She added that toilets should be compost toilets not new toilet blocks. A middle ground should be obtained.
A member of the public enquired if there was scope for further travellers on the site. A resident at the site advised that the site was now full. Conditions had been set on how far down the track could be used, this had been strictly adhered too.
The Chairman felt that it was unfair that other residents were having enforcement notices served on them for breaking planning regulations but there was no enforcement on this site. He added that eviction would be needed if the site was not authorised. Cllr R Corben said it was hard to justify not taking enforcement action when it was being taken against others in the village.
A member of the public felt that better sites were available rather than this disused landfill site.
A resident of the site felt that if the site was authorised the Council would operate a points system which would allow different types of travellers to use the site which could cause problems. He added that the current occupiers of the site all knew each other and had formed a small community.
Following discussion it was agreed that if Councillors wanted to complete the consultation they would do so on an individual basis and the Parish Council would not respond to the consultation.
|