Cat statue on plinth at Julia's House, Dorchester

“Issue Conclusion Principle of development The principle of public art is acceptable Scale, design, impact on character and appearance The statue is life-size and appropriate in term of scale and appearance Impact on the living conditions of the occupants and neighbouring properties No significant impact Impact on heritage assets No harm to the setting of heritage assets Economic benefits An indirect consequence may see visitors to the statue spend money in the town’s shops,…”

“Description of development The proposal sees the erection of the life size cat statue of a height of 38cm mounted on a low plinth that would measure 40cm square to a height of 75cm. The total height would therefore measure 113cm. The statue will be cast in bronze, and the plinth would be fossil bearing Purbeck stone. The plinth will be anchored to the ground with stainless steel pins to a concrete sub-base. The flagstones will be replaced above the concrete base.”

“Description of site The site of the proposed statue is in South Street outside the retail shop 34 South Street occupied by Julia’s House Charity. South Street is a pedestrian street located in Dorchester Town Centre within the Primary Shopping Frontage area. The site is also within the designated…”

“Conservation Area and there are a number of listed buildings, the nearest being 28/29/30 South Street on the opposite side and also 25/26 South Street. The location has been chosen so the statue is in line with the existing benches and planters.”

“Benefits The proposal may provide a number of financial and non-financial benefits, including public benefits. Material considerations The applicant has specifically requested that it is made clear to the committee that the intention behind the statue is not as a tourism attraction but rather to honour a well-loved feline resident, a nod to Dorchester’s Roman origin, an accessible piece of art and a quality poem inscribed on the plinth as a continuation of Dorchester’s…”

“Summary of issues and the planning balance Noting the significant public support for the statue and for the reasons as set out above, the proposal is considered to accord with all relevant policies of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan, in particular policy ENV10 and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework and is recommended for approval with conditions.”

“Planning Assessment Principle of development The principle of public art is acceptable. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF encourages development that is sympathetic to local character and history, establishes a strong sense of place and create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and wellbeing.”

“Many of the surrounding shopfronts are modern alterations which do not contribute positively to the special character and appearance of the conservation area. The former Eldridge Pope New Inn opposite retains historic tiles and contributes to local heritage interest. The proposal takes up a relatively small amount of space within the street. Consideration is given to the density of similar features.”

“Consultations All consultee responses can be viewed in full on the website. Consultees 1. DC Highways – No objection 2. DC Conservation Officers – No objection to the proposal on heritage grounds 3. Dorchester Town Council – As Dorchester Town Council will be taking ownership of the statue within 2 years of it being installed if permission is approved therefore, it doesn’t feel appropriate for the Town Council to comment 4.”

“Summary of comments of objections: • This is something the town doesn't need. It adds nothing to our attractions for visitors when the town's wonderful Roman heritage is largely underplayed. It would be far for useful and informative if the neglected brown tourist signs situated at both main entrances to Dorchester were refurbished. They just make the town look uninteresting and neglected. Promote it properly, not waste money on flippant displays.”

“Members questions and comments • Members noted that the proposed structure was relatively low in height and expressed concern that it could present a trip hazard to pedestrians. It was also expressed that the structure would be positioned adjacent to existing planters. Members sought clarification regarding future maintenance arrangements.”

“In response to Members’ questions, officers provided the following clarifications: • Officers advised that it was intended to provide an accessible piece of public art. The design would enable interaction by children and would also be accessible to people with disabilities, thereby enhancing its educational and inclusive value within the public realm. The feature would be maintained by the Town Council.”

“Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Fry, and seconded by Cllr Jespersen.”

“Decision: To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.”