URL: https://moderngov.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4456

Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Decision:       At the 6th November 2024 meeting of the Eastern Area Planning committee (EAPC), the committee resolved to grant consent for the development of a Class E(a) retail food store with associated parking, landscaping and access on land east of Sandford Rd Wareham (LPA reference P/FUL/2022/06012), contrary to the officer recommendation       Resolution (from the 6.11.2024 minutes):  to grant subject to securing the required biodiversity compensation payment; planning conditions with authority delegated to the Head of Planning and the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement to agree the wording of conditions with the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Eastern Area Planning Committee; and referral to the Secretary of State.       In accordance with the Committee resolution:       the wording of conditions has been agreed with the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Eastern Area Planning Committee   The application was referred to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government by e-mail on the 2 December 2024. Confirmation was received from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on 18th December 2024 that the Secretary of State has decided not to call in this application confirming that she is content for the application to be determined by the Local Planning Authority.       Since the EAPC resolution, in December 2024, the Government published a new National Planning Policy Framework. In consultation with legal officers and the EAPC chair, the proposal has been assessed against changes to the NPPF to determine whether there are any material change in circumstances to alter the member resolution.       For the reasons set out below I consider that there are no material changes to the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF which could have led to members reaching a materially different conclusion on the application.       (Decisions included can be executive or non-executive in nature, depending on the delegation given.  Please state if the delegation was granted by the Cabinet or any other Committee or is detailed within the Scheme of Delegation in the Council’s Constitution.) Reason(s) for Decisions:         The revised NPPF at Para. 155, notes:       The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where:       a – The development would utilise Grey Belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;   b- There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of the proposed development;   c- The development would be in sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework and    d – Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.       In this instance the officer report  to committee acknowledged that the site does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes a, b, or c; officers agreed there was a demonstrable unmet retail need as set out in the officer report; officers considered the site to be in a sustainable location as set out in the officer report; the ‘Golden Rules’ do not appear to apply to commercial  development.  Alternative options considered and rejected:    To return the application to committee for decision.     The EAPC chairman confirmed by e-mail to the case officer on the 19.12.2024  that  I agree with the assessment that the revised NPPF strengthens the Committee decision to Grant the application.   

Date of Decision: December 19, 2024