East Dorset District Council Planning Committee 26Th October, 2004

Ever yone 7 128 865 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 C hief Exec uti ves 2 0 28, 29 rep_exe_IDsNo No No No No No No No No No N o N o N o N o N o N o No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No NoEN1, EN2 26/10/2004 09.30.40 Chief Executive Ol d 52 1

East Dorset District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Item No 6 26th October, 2004 Public Report

Schedule of Planning Applications

Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Contributors: Chief Executive Contact Officer: Michael Hirsh, Head of Planning & Building Control Financial Implications: None Council Priorities: EN1 EN2 Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Head of Planning & Building Control's recommendations.

1. Applicable Lead Member Area(s) 1.1 Environment;

2. Crime and Disorder – Section 17 Implications 2.1 Where there is a specific crime and disorder matter that is a material planning consideration, it will form part of the report related to the particular application.

3. Application Schedule

No. Application No. Site Address Pg.

1. 3/03/1541/COU Woodlands Manor Farm, Horton Road, Horton 1 4 2. 3/03/1546/LBC Woodlands Manor Farm, Horton Road, Horton 4

3. 3/04/0146/FUL Land Adjoining Village Hall, Parsonage Hill, Gussage St. 7 Michael

4. 3/04/0704/OUT Land Adjoining The Retreat, Barrack Road, West Parley 11

5. 3/04/1072/FUL 8 Brackenhill Road, Colehill, Wimborne 15

6. 3/04/1133/FUL 44 Rectory Avenue, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 17

7. 3/04/1142/FUL 33 St Catherines, Wimborne Minster, Wimborne 20

8. 3/04/1155/FUL 15 And 17 Aldridge Road, Ferndown, Dorset 22

9. 3/04/1225/FUL Heatherstone, 74 Moorlands Road, West Moors 30

10. 3/04/1272/FUL 28 Pennington Road, West Moors, Ferndown 32

11. 3/04/1230/COU 5 Pennys Walk, Ferndown, Dorset 33

12. 3/04/1307/FUL 137B Lions Lane, Ashley Heath, Ringwood 35

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/03/1541/COU

Proposal: Alterations, Extensions and Change of Use of Existing Barn to form Dwelling. As amended by plans received 19th February 2004 and 4th March 2004 Site Address: Woodlands Manor Farm, Horton Road, Horton, for Mr And Mrs D Riddle Constraints Listed Buildings Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Public Rights of Way Area of Great Landscape Value LP Site Notice expired: Advert expired: 13 February 2004 Nbr-Nfn expired: 6 February 2004

Knowlton Parish Council No objection Comments:

Knowlton Parish Council No objection to amended plans. Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Design And Comments on Listed Building application 3/03/1546/LBC Conservation

County Rights Of Way Officer Several recorded public rights of way in vicinity of the development - footpaths 17,18,20,21 and bridleway 15 - Woodlands. Unaware of any unrecorded paths likely to be affected. The rights of way do not, from plans received, seem to be directly affected. If application successful, free passage of public must not be obstructed/restricted. If necessary to close footpaths or bridleway for any length of time, application forms for temp closure must be completed/returned at least 8 weeks beforehand.

Wimborne Civic Society Does this proposal comply with Green Belt Policy as laid out in East Dorset Local Plan?

English Heritage Comments on Listed Building Application 3/03/1546/LBC

Officers Report:

This planning application, and the accompanying Listed Building application, (3/03/1546) propose the change of use of a Listed Barn on the Woodlands Manor Farm complex to provide a further dwelling for the family group that resides there.

Listed Building consent was granted for the restoration and alterations to the building in 1986 under reference number 86/0920. The barn has been used as an entertainment complex for the estate since then. The applicant argues that due to changes brought about by the Disability Discrimination Act and the new Part M of the Building Regulations, he would have to carry out significant improvements to the building to bring it up to current standards to be able to obtain an Entertainment Licence which is necessary for any form of insurance. It is felt by the applicant that these changes would conflict with the historic integrity of the building and also would be very expensive. The applicant's son and family want their own dwelling on

2 the site and it is suggested that this barn could be converted to a dwelling to meet that need, and in doing so, will be able to re-use the Listed Barn, and put right some of the insensitive alterations from the 1980's (such as the brick and tile bar and kitchen, and toilet block in the barn)

The conversion of a barn to residential accommodation in the open countryside, in particular in the Green Belt, is contrary to both national and local policy. The only exceptions, in policy CSIDE2 and BUCON9, are where "the building is incapable of reasonably beneficial use through re-use or conversion for any of the foregoing" ie for employment, tourism or recreational uses, and where "a proposed change of use of a Listed Building conflicts with other policies, it will be permitted where: (a) the existing use or alternative uses which accord with other policies are not expected to secure the preservation of the building...”.

The applicants have argued that the barn is in the middle of an existing group of dwellings where any form of commercial use would be inappropriate. They argue that it is far too big to be used for holiday accommodation and due to the cost of the works to the Listed Building it is only viable as a dwelling. The applicant's agent has also submitted details of an appeal in North Dorset where the conversion of barns was permitted for residential accommodation.

Your Officers do not accept this argument. The barn is in a sound condition, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. It does not have an authorised use as a commercial entertainment centre, rather was to be used ancillary to the dwellings on the adjacent land. It could be used for storage associated with the land holding, for example, connected with the equestrian uses on the site. It could also be used for ancillary office accommodation by the land owner. The conversion of this building into a dwelling would result in a further residential use in this isolated Green Belt location, which would constitute unsustainable development. It would also result in the likelihood of the domestic paraphernalia associated with the residential occupation of a dwelling having an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

PPS7 also addresses the issue of the re-use of buildings in the countryside. Section 17 states that 'The Government's policy is to support the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives.' It goes on to say that the 're-use for economic development purposes will usually be preferable, but residential conversions may be more appropriate in some locations, and for some types of building.' It then sets out a series of criteria that should be taken into account when considering such schemes, which include the potential impact on the countryside, specific local economic and social needs, settlement patterns and accessibility to service centres, the suitability of different types of buildings for re-use and the need to preserve buildings of historic importance or interest. This building is different from the majority of conversion applications in that it is not the initial conversion from a farm building under threat if an alternative use is not found for it. It has already been converted to a fairy high standard and is under no immediate threat. The expensive conversion work has already been done. It does not represent farm diversification which is vital to the continuing viability of the farm enterprise as there is no significant farming going on on the land. The appeal decision referred to is not in the Green Belt and appears to relate to the first conversion of buildings potentially under threat, which is a different scenario than the application before the Committee.

The application is therefore recommended for refusal for the following reasons.

Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

Reasons:-

1 The proposed development lies within the Green Belt as defined in the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000, and identified in the East Dorset Local Plan 2002. Within this area it is intended that no new development shall be permitted except that reasonably required in connection with agriculture or forestry or other uses appropriate. The conversion of this existing Listed Building to a dwelling amounts to inappropriate development which is harmful to the openness of the Green belt and contrary to the purposes of including land within it. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are any circumstances that are so special as to outweigh the Green Belt policies, the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the reasons for including land within it. The Council do not consider that the evidence submitted by the applicant to argue that a residential conversion is the only beneficial use for this Listed Building is compelling enough to outweigh the Green Belt and countryside policies that apply to the area, and which would also result in a dwelling in an unsustainable location. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CSIDE2 (para 6.59) , GB2 (para 6.97) and GB4 (para 6.106) of the East Dorset Local Plan and the advice contained in PPG2 and PPS7.

Policy Considerations

In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: CSIDE2 GB2 GB4 BUCON9

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/03/1546/LBC

Proposal: Alterations, Extensions and Change of Use of Existing Barn to Form Dwelling as amended by plans received 19th February 2004 and 4th March 2004 Site Address: Woodlands Manor Farm, Horton Road, Horton, for Mr And Mrs Riddle Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Green Belt LP Public Rights of Way Area of Great Landscape Value LP Listed Buildings Site Notice expired: 12 February 2004 Advert expired: 13 February 2004 Nbr-Nfn expired:

Knowlton Parish Council No objection Comments:

Knowlton Parish Council No objection to amended plans Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development The rights of way do not, from the plan received, seem to Liaison Officer be directly affected by the development and in the absence of any information to the contrary, I have no

4 adverse comments to make.

EDDC Design And No objection to the proposed works to the Listed Building, Conservation but remains concerned about the principle of the conversion to a dwelling in the Green Belt.

English Heritage The conversion of listed barns to residential use is not normally supported by English Heritage due to the impact on their agricultural character. In this case it appears that the agricultural character of the site has already been significantly altered and is largely residential. Although we would advocate that alternative uses are investigated first this may not be so relevant in this case if a commercial use would not be appropriate here. We are happy for the Council's conservation Officer to undertake detailed negotiations on this scheme taking into account our comments in this letter.

Wimborne Civic Society , Query. Does this proposal comply with the Green Belt Policy as laid out in the East Dorset Local Plan_

Officers Report:

This Listed Building application, and the accompanying planning application (3/03/1541) propose the change of use of a Listed Barn on the Woodlands Manor Farm complex to provide a further dwelling for the family group that resides there.

Listed Building consent was granted for the restoration and alterations to the building in 1986 under reference number 86/0920. The barn has been used as an entertainment complex for the estate since then. The applicant argues that due to changes brought about by the Disability Discrimination Act and the new Part M of the Building Regulations, he would have to carry out significant improvements to the building to bring it up to current standards to be able to obtain an Entertainment Licence, which is necessary for any form of insurance. It is felt by the applicant that these changes would conflict with the historic integrity of the building and also would be very expensive.

The applicant's son and family want their own dwelling on the site and it is suggested that this barn could be converted to a dwelling to meet that need, and in doing so will be able to re-use the Listed Barn, and put right some of the insensitive alterations from the 1980's (such as the brick and tile bar and kitchen, and toilet block in the barn).

The applicant has argued that the barn is in the middle of an existing group of dwellings where any form of commercial use would be inappropriate. They argue that it is far too big to be used for holiday accommodation and due to the cost of the works to the Listed Building, it is only viable as a dwelling.

5 The applicant's agent has also submitted details of an appeal in North Dorset where the conversion of barns was permitted for residential accommodation. Your Officers do not accept this argument. The barn is in a sound condition, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. It does not have an authorised use as a commercial entertainment centre, rather was to be used ancillary to the dwellings on the adjacent land. It could be used for storage associated with the land holding, for example connected with the equestrian uses on the site. It could also be used for ancillary office accommodation by the land owner.

The conversion of this building into a dwelling would result in a further residential use in this isolated Green Belt location, which would constitute unsustainable development. It would also result in the likelihood of the domestic paraphernalia associated with the residential occupation of a dwelling having an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

This building is different from the majority of conversion applications in that it is not the initial conversion from a farm building under threat if an alternative use is not found for it. It has already been converted to a fairy high standard and is under no immediate threat. The expensive conversion work has already been done. It does not represent farm diversification which is vital to the continuing viability of the farm enterprise as there is no significant farming going on on the land. The appeal decision referred to is not in the Green Belt and appears to relate to the first conversion of buildings potentially under threat, which is a different scenario than the application before the Committee. The application is therefore recommended for refusal for the following reason.

Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

Reasons:-

1 The Council do not consider that the evidence submitted by the applicant to argue that a residential conversion is the only beneficial use for this Listed Building is compelling enough to outweigh the presumption against the change of use. The Council consider that the works proposed represent an unnecessary intervention to this building and is contrary to Policy BUCON9 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations

6 Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/04/0146/FUL

Proposal: Detached House and Garage with New Access Including Access to Village Hall (Amended Plan Rec'd 04.08.04 and 29.09.04) Site Address: Land Adjoining Village Hall, Parsonage Hill, Gussage St. Michael, for Mr Rowe Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Site Notice expired: 6 March 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 27 August 2004

Gussage St Michael Parish No Objection Council Comments:

Gussage St Michael Parish No Objection - Members felt that criticisms levelled at this Council Comments: proposal have been fully answered by the modifications to the plans.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Recommended Amendments - I suggest the same Liaison Officer amendments are required to this submission as previously recommended for 3/03/0938

EDDC Tree Section No arboricultural objections subject to a protective fencing plan

County Archaeological Officer I accept that archaeology is not an issue with respect to Plots 1 and 5 but in my opinion an archaeological evaluation is needed before determination for Plots 2,3 and 4.

EDDC Design And No objection to these minor amendments. Conservation I suggest that the choice of roofing tiles and facing brick, together with landscaping, be the subject of planning conditions. Ideally, structural planting around the edges of the site should be installed during the forthcoming planting season.

Neighbour Comments: Mr And Mrs Grazebrook The Increased traffic flows. Will block light in elevated position. Old Rectory, Gussage St Still object to amended plans. Michael

Miss Wickham The Old School Intrusive effect on home and life. Overlooking. House, Gussage St Michael Overshadow. Requesting Committee site visit. Lack of privacy. Historic character.

Mrs Burry Robin Cottage, Concerned about having a 2 storey house. Will overlook. Gussage St Michael

Mr Hatton Linden Grove, Manor Loss of light and privacy Road

Officers Report:

This application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 5 October 2004 as Members wish to carry out a site visit.

The proposal is to erect a detached two-storey dwelling with integral garage and carport and comes to the Planning Committee on account of the number of letters of objection received.

The site is currently a cleared area of vacant land to the west of the village hall. The proposed dwelling is a 4-bed property with part-hipped roofs in a design which reflects 19th century estate cottages which are common in the surrounding area. Access and parking for the property is to be provided from Parsonage Hill with a revised access to the village hall also incorporated into the driveway to the dwelling.

Gussage St. Michael lies within the Cranborne Chase AONB. The village has an infill envelope defined in the East Dorset Local Plan. The site lies wholly within the village envelope. Therefore the principle of residential development on the site is considered to be acceptable.

Parsonage Hill rises steeply from the village which is located in the valley floor. The application property occupies an elevated position above the properties which form the linear development along Manor Road. It will also be the first property viewed when approaching the site from this direction. It is considered that the design of the property and its scale and impact on the village and the wider AONB is acceptable.

The property was originally proposed to be sited further back on the plot directly opposite The Old School House. As noted above, this property is set lower down, its first floor being approximately at the same level as the ground floor of the proposed dwelling. This neighbour also has side facing bedroom windows looking towards the site. Following concerns expressed over the impact to this neighbour, the dwelling has been moved south away from the adjacent property. The proposal will be approximately 13m from the neighbour at the closest point and the two-storey part of the property will be approximately 19m from The Old School House. It is considered that the revised location has an acceptable relationship with the neighbour.

The requirements of the Highways Authority are noted, however, the provision of such a substantial splay within a rural location is considered to adversely impact on the character of the village. The proposals provide for the visibility splay up Parsonage Hill where vehicles may potentially be entering the village at speed but not in the opposite direction. However, the road bends sharply right at its junction with Manor Road approximately 35m from the site frontage and in this particular situation, it is not considered appropriate to provide the splays requested by the Highways Authority.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

8 Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, if any, thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979), immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality.

3 Plans and particulars showing the finished floor levels, related to ordnance datum or fixed point within the site, of the ground floor of the proposed building(s), (and as appropriate the closest adjacent building beyond the site) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and development shall not be commenced until these details have been approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal having regard to the existing site levels and those adjacent hereto.

4 Plans and particulars showing the alignment height and materials of all walls and fences and other means of enclosure, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved. Such details as may be agreed shall be implemented in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the building to which these elements relate, maintained for a period of five years and any structural or decorative defect appearing during this period shall be rectified and the enclosure shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the enclosure details of the proposal and its implementation and retention.

5 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.

6 A scheme for the protection of existing trees (and hedges) on site showing protective fencing to be erected in accordance with the British Standard specification BS5837:1991 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by this Authority before any development commences on site. The scheme shall be retained throughout the

9 entire construction period and shall be undertaken in its entirety before any site works are commenced. Should any trees (or hedges) die, be damaged or become diseased as a result of the construction works then they shall be replaced in accordance with a written specification, to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, within the next available planting season.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged.

7 Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the provisions of Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, nothing over 0.600 metres in height above the level of the adjacent carriageway shall be permitted to remain, be placed, built, planted or grown on the land designated as visibility splays on the plan.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

8 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning space, garaging and parking shown on the approved plan has been constructed and these shall be maintained and be kept available for that purpose at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9 The windows in the development hereby approved shall be set in 100mm reveals.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

10 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment no further windows or doors shall be constructed in the north east elevation(s) (such expression to include the roof and wall) of the extension/building hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

11 The requirement to submit a landscaping scheme and implement the approved scheme as set out in condition 2, shall include full details of the proposed planting and hedgerow shown to be planted to the west of the site on the land edged blue on the approved plans.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality.

Informatives:

1 The District Council has been advised of the possibility of the development causing subsidence at adjoining properties. The applicant is advised to take appropriate measures to ensure the stability of the land and adjacent land during construction of the development hereby approved.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/04/0704/OUT

Proposal: Erection of a Residential Bungalow up to 205sq metres and double Garage together with Revised Access to Existing Commercial Premises Site Address: Land Adjoining The Retreat, Barrack Road, West Parley, for John Turner Commercials Constraints Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Site Notice expired: 11 July 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 28 June 2004

West Parley Parish Council Objection - Contrary to Green Belt Policy 6.97 of East Comments: Dorset Local Plan.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Recommended amendments - The proposed revised Liaison Officer position of the commercial access should be included within the red line.

English Nature

Neighbour Comments: Mr J And Mrs E Cullen Virginia Obscure sight of the existing commercial vehicle yard, Cottage, Barrack Road which will improve the look of the whole area.

Barrack Road Residents Support - Will improve the look of this part of Barrack Association Virginia Cottage, Road. Barrack Road Barrack Road Residents' Association - siting and size of bungalow appropriate, assume if permission granted that CLU for mobile home will be lost, application assumed to require assessment under end of vehicle life regulations by Environment Agency, Mr Turner has offered to accept conditions to limit times of operation, conditions needed if permission granted.

The Owner/Occupier Bungalow will screen commercial use and improve Holmedale, Barrack Road appearance of site.

WHT Developments Unit 3 No Objection Heathercroft, Barrack Road

Officers Report:

This application relates to the erection of a new detached bungalow, together with a revised commercial access, on land to the north of the property known as The Retreat, Barrack Road. The site is within the Green Belt.

The application site forms part of a more extensive piece of land (approx 1.65ha) which includes The Retreat and which has a complex planning history.

Members may recall the Council’s involvement in two enforcement appeals and a High Court Challenge between October 1998 and March 2000 on the land at The Retreat which clarified the lawful commercial activities on the site.

Essentially, the applicant is permitted to use the land for the storage of vehicles, the preparation, repair, valeting and sale of commercial vehicles and cars; the ancillary breaking and dismantling of up to eight vehicles per month and the ancillary sale and storage of vehicle parts from within one of the workshops on site.

Whilst most of the land under the ownership and control of the applicant is used extensively for commercial activities, the land forming part of the curtilage of the property known as The Retreat and fronting Barrack Road, remains open. Earlier this year, a Certificate of Lawful Use was granted for the stationing of a mobile home which is located towards the middle of the site.

Assessment of the Proposal

The proposed site for a bungalow lies in close proximity to the site’s boundary with Barrack Road and it is situated adjacent to and forward of the existing property known as The Retreat.

The indicative siting shows a bungalow (up to 205 sq.m.) and a double garage close to the application site boundaries and the Barrack Road frontage. A new commercial access is shown tight to the northern boundary and the side elevation of the new property.

The application site is within the Green Belt, where the erection of new buildings is not acceptable unless they maintain the openness of the land or they are for agriculture/forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, limited extension or replacement of dwellings or infilling within village policy boundaries.

The proposal is for none of the above and represents inappropriate development as a result. The question arises therefore as to whether there are any very special circumstances in this case to outweigh the harm brought about by this inappropriate development.

If permission is forthcoming, the applicant has offered various improvements to the appearance of the site from Barrack Road and a reorganisation of the site to remove the most conspicuous commercial vehicles from view. This he argues will improve the amenity of the Honey Farm, The Retreat, an adjoining property to the south and the wider area, including the amenity of those using Barrack Road. Through the imposition of planning conditions and/or planning agreements, the applicant would:

• Reorganise the site to ensure that an area is kept permanently free from vehicles to enable visitor parking and vehicle unloading/manoeuvring.

12 • Reorganise the site to ensure that an access to the main yard is kept permanently clear to avoid the need for vehicles to park in Barrack Road • Enter into an obligation not to park and/or keep commercial vehicles on Barrack Road, or on the access approach to the main yard • Create a second access to keep commercial vehicle movements away from The Retreat • Screen The Retreat from the main yard • Resurface, if so required, the applicant’s frontage onto Barrack Road • Agree that the main yard would only operate Monday-Friday between 07:30 and 19:00 and on Saturdays between 07:30 and 14:00 with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays • Discuss with the Council other reasonable controls which the Council might wish to see imposed to safeguard the amenity of the area against the current largely unneighbourly commercial use. • Agree to the permanent removal of the authorised mobile home. • Remove all commercial vehicles from the application site.

It is not considered that the above represents special circumstances to allow a new dwelling in the countryside and Green Belt.

In the first instance, the ‘reorganisation’ only affects a relatively small area of the commercial site. The removal of vehicles from the application site would have to be seen in context with its replacement by a large property close to the Barrack Road frontage. The plot is small and would represent a cramped form of development with very little amenity space. All commercial traffic would pass immediately adjacent to the north wall of the property resulting in loss of amenity to its occupiers. It is also likely that the existing hedge screening along the northern boundary could be lost.

There is no existing permission to park/store vehicles along Barrack Road. Even with a Legal Agreement in place, this would be difficult to enforce, particularly in relation to customer vehicles.

The stated advantages to the residential amenities of The Retreat would only serve to benefit the applicant as it is his own property.

The removal of the lawful caravan would be replaced by a much larger permanent property, with the vacated space being replaced by commercial vehicles. This would likely be to the detriment of the occupiers of the adjacent Honey Farm.

The offer of operating hours restriction is noted but it is doubtful whether the commercial enterprise currently operates, or would operate, outside these hours in any event.

The site lies within close proximity to the Parley Common SSSI and English Nature have been consulted over the proposal. English Nature have registered a holding objection to the proposal which could be removed if the applicant enters into an agreement to secure the removal of the lawful caravan elsewhere on The Retreat and prohibit any future residential mobile home if a new dwelling is approved. Whilst the applicant is willing to enter into such agreement, the objection would stand until such agreement is completed.

The existing use of the site for commercial purposes is inappropriate development. However, in your Officers’ view, the balance of planning advantage put forward by the applicant and the offer of planning conditions are not so great as to outweigh the harm caused by permitting this permanent dwelling in the Green Belt. The application is therefore recommended for refusal on the following grounds.

Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

Reasons:-

1 The proposed development lies within the Green Belt as defined in the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000, and identified in the East Dorset Local Plan (2002). Within this area it is intended that no new development shall be permitted except that reasonably required in connection with agriculture or forestry or other appropriate uses. The construction of new dwellings in the Green Belt amounts to inappropriate development which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and contrary to the purposes of including the land within it. It is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that there are any circumstances that are so special so as to outweigh the Green Belt policies, the harm to the openness of the Green belt and the reasons for including the land within it. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Policy GB2 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002) and the advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 'Green Belts'.

2 The site lies outside any urban area or settlement identified in the East Dorset Local Plan, and therefore it is in the countryside in terms of planning policy. New residential dwellings are not normally acceptable in the countryside, unless they are justified by a requirement for use by an agricultural or forestry worker. Additionally, the proposed dwelling is not located close to facilities and services and lies over 1700m from the urban area, therefore it is not considered to be in a sustainable location where new residential development should be encouraged. Therefore, for the above reasons, the proposal is contrary to Policy CSIDE2 and the guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 2004.

3 The pattern of residential development in the immediate area is formed by dwellings set well back from Barrack Road. The indicative siting of the dwelling in comparison with the size of the plot as proposed as shown on the Ordnance Survey 1:1250 block plan is considered to represent a cramped form of development in close proximity to the boundary with Barrack Road. It is considered to be out of character with the pattern of development in the immediate area as a result. The vehicular access to serve the commercial site located to the rear of the application site is in close proximity to the side of the proposed dwelling. This aspect, together with the minimal area of outside amenity space to serve the proposed dwelling is considered likely to result in unacceptable living conditions for any occupants of the proposed dwelling. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002.

4 The site lies within close proximity to the Parley Common 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 candidate SAC (Special Area of Conservation). The proximity of these European sites (SPA and candidate SAC) means that determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat Regulations 1994, in particular Regulations 48 and 49. The proposal is for a new dwelling. The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the

14 proposals will cause no harm to the SPA and candidate SAC heathland. The Local Planning Authority, in carrying out an Appropriate Assessment, considers that the proposed development would in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to heathland, be likely to have a significant effect on the SPA, Ramsar site and candidate SAC features. For these reasons the proposal is considered contrary to the recommendation of the Bern Convention Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands as well as Environment policies A, B, C and D of the Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset Structure Plan and Policies NCON4 and NCON1 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002).

Informatives:

1 English Nature have advised that if the removal of the existing mobile home is secured by agreement which results in no further increase in the number of dwelling units on the site, then reason for refusal No 4 will be overcome.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/04/1072/FUL

Proposal: Extension at Ground Floor Level to Form Porch and Attached Garage and Reconstruct Roof to Form 4 Bedrooms and Bathrooms to Include Dormer Windows and Rear Balcony as amended by plans received 24/9/2004 Site Address: 8 Brackenhill Road, Colehill, Wimborne, for Mr Samson Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Site Notice expired: 27 August 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 23 August 2004

Colehill Parish Council Objection - Query percentage increase in size compared Comments: with original footprints. Concerned proposed alterations will be out of keeping with surrounding development.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Formal recommendation - DT1 On-Site Turning facilities. Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments: Mr G Legg 6 Brackenhill Road, Rear balcony would be very intrusive to privacy. Colehill

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee on account of an objection raised by the Parish Council, in the light of the Officer recommendation of approval.

Description of Proposal

This application is for an extension to the side (north) to form an integral garage and extension to the front to form a porch. The new extensions and rest of the dwelling are to be covered with a new roof that will have a 6.7m ridge height, in lieu of the 4.6m ridge height at present.

Description of Site

There is a modest sized detached hipped roof bungalow with detached garage and off-street parking on the site. Ground levels fall towards the site from the north east.

Description of policy framework

The site lies within the urban area, and Policy DES8 of the Local Plan is relevant.

Analysis of Issues

The principal issues relating to the application are; impact of the proposal on the street scene, and impact on neighbouring properties.

Negotiation has resulted in the dormer windows on the front elevation being reduced in width, so they are now more harmonious with the appearance of the front elevation. Additionally, the proposed balcony at the rear of the dwelling has been replaced by a balustrade, so that no persons may stand out and overlook the neighbouring dwellings.

There is a chalet type dwelling immediately to the south of the application site at 6 Brackenhill Road. This has a hipped roof with a 6.2m high ridge, which is of similar height to the proposal.

The application dwelling is set back from Brackenhill Road, and is currently set further back from the frontage of No.6. The proposed extension at the front of the dwelling will also be set back from the road, and no nearer to it than the frontage of No.6. It is considered that the proposed extensions will appear acceptable in the street scene as a result.

The rear facing dormer window will allow views over the rear gardens of 6 and 10 Brackenhill Road. The views over the rear garden of No.6 are not considered to allow significant overlooking to warrant refusal of the application, on account of the set back position of the application dwelling in relation to No.6, which will allow a private area at the rear of No.6.

The overlooking of the garden of No.10 is also not considered to be significant, as the relationship of the rear dormer with No.10 will not allow a great area of garden to be overlooked, with only parts of the side and rear garden being affected. Therefore allowing private areas to remain.

Conclusion

It is considered that the application is acceptable on account of the amendments made.

Recommendation

This application is therefore recommended for approval

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.

3 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the first floor window on the side (south) elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration or door shall be installed in the side (south and north) elevations without express planning permission.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further balcony shall be installed in the rear (east) elevation without express planning permission.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/04/1133/FUL

Proposal: Front Extension to Include Raising of Ridge

Site Address: 44 Rectory Avenue, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs Mattocks Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Site Notice expired: 3 September 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 31 August 2004

Corfe Mullen Parish Council Objection - Not in keeping with street scenes open plan

17 Comments: aspect and therefore detrimental to street scene. The height and bulk of the roof would also cause loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section No arboricultural objections/conditions.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr T D And Mrs C R Baulin 46 In keeping with area. Enhance the look of the street. Rectory Avenue, Corfe Mullen

Mrs Dennis 42 Rectory Avenue, Height and bulk would overwhelm our property. Corfe Mullen Restricting light. Lack of privacy.

Mr Fox 63 Rectory Avenue, Extension creative and will enhance area. Corfe Mullen

C E T Gilbert 48 Rectory Destroy openness of the street. Avenue, Corfe Mullen

Mr M D Bruce 67 Rectory I do not believe that development in front of the current Avenue, Corfe Mullen building line is acceptable. Out of character with other properties in Rectory Ave.

R W Munt 40 Rectory Avenue, Overlooking. Restrict light. Not in sympathy with the rest Corfe Mullen of the avenue.

Mr A Humphrey 24 Rectory Enhance the street outlook. Avenue, Corfe Mullen

A Hayes 60 Rectory Avenue, Enhance the street scene. Corfe Mullen

Officers Report:

This application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 5 October 2004 as Members wish to carry out a site visit.

The application comes before Members, as there are eight letters in connection with the application, four in support and four against. The letters in support are contrary to the recommendation.

The Proposal

The proposal is for a two storey front extension, which involves raising the roof by one metre and projecting 1.8 metres further towards the road.

Site Description The dwelling is chalet with a large front dormer. It sits between a bungalow to the north and a two storey property with steep gables to the south. Both adjoining properties are set back six

18 metres from the front of the chalet, which has the effect of making the application site more prominent in the street scene. Rectory Avenue, is a cul-de-sac containing a mix of bungalows, chalets and two storey properties and a variety of designs. Towards the south of the application site, the pattern is of gable fronted buildings, predominantly bungalows.

Planning History

A single storey front extension of 4.4 metres depth and roof extension raising the front of the existing dwelling to two storey, was refused under delegated powers on 29 March 2004. It was considered that the front extension was obtrusive in the street scene and the design of the dwelling was out of character with other properties in the street scene. Two further informal plans have been discussed with officers following the refusal to explore a more suitable design approach, which has led to the submission of the current planning application.

Policy Framework

Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan sets out the design criteria for new developments, ensuring that designs are appropriate in their environment in relation to neighbouring properties, trees, scale form and design, and that they should harmonize with the rural landscape.

Analysis of issues

The proposed design is now more in keeping with the street scene. The use of steep gables and the raising of the roof by one metre, in itself, is considered to be acceptable. However, the forward projection of 1.8 metres will make the property too obtrusive in the street scene as the form of development is higher and more dominant. The height and forward projection of the front gable would also overpower the adjacent bungalow, given its set back by 7.8 metres from the proposed front elevation of No 42.

The applicants have submitted details of sunlight to demonstrate that their extension would not take light from the front windows of No 42 because of the existing trees in the front of No 42 and the position of the roof in relation to the rear of their property. It is accepted that the light loss to No 42 as a result of the extension would not amount to demonstrable harm, but the front windows would be overshadowed to a greater degree than exists at present.

The proposed extension does result in additional side windows. Some of the details are not provided on elevations, but it is clear that a first floor bedroom window facing south and north would overlook No 46 and No 42. This overlooking would be unacceptable if the windows remained.

Overall, the proposal offers considerable design improvements from earlier schemes but would have an overpowering effect in the street scene and on No 42, as well as overlooking both adjoining properties.

Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

Reasons:-

1 The proposed extension would have an overpowering effect upon the bungalow at No 42 and would appear unduly prominent in the street scene due to its height and forward projection. Bedroom windows in the first floor facing No 42 and No46 will

19 also result in overlooking of adjacent properties, resulting in loss of privacy. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy DES8 (Para 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/04/1142/FUL

Proposal: Two storey extension at side and single storey extension at rear as amended by plans received 13.10.2004 Site Address: 33 St Catherines, Wimborne Minster, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs Dicks Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Fluvial Flooding Area Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Site Notice expired: 4 September 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 1 September 2004

Wimborne Minster Town Objection - This application does not appear to meet the Council Comments: requirements of Special Character Area applications in terms of: 1. Site survey 2. Site analysis 3. Design statement

(See P3 EDDC Planning Department Supplementary Planning Guidance No 27 7/04).

The overall plan would alter the appearance of the property to the extent that, if implemented, it would affect the uniform pattern of form and appearance of buildings in this street.

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development No Objection. Liaison Officer

EDDC Design And This is an attractive period house that has retained its Conservation original windows and slate roof, at least on the front elevation. The building includes some good brick dressing details which should be incorporated into the new work. The proposed garage and first floor extension is set well back from the building frontage, so its impact on the Conservation Area will be slight. The loss of some vegetative screening along the boundary should not be too much of a problem provided the choice of materials and detailing are appropriate. In this respect, the bargeboard detail that is currently shown needs to be revised. The single storey bargeboards should be replaced with simple

20 verges. It is important that the new windows should match the materials and detailing of the originals, including the chunky masonry subsills and depth of reveals, which could be included as a planning condition.

Officers Report:

This application comes before the Committee on account of the objection by the town council in the light of the Officer recommendation of approval.

Description of Proposal

This application is for a two-storey gabled extension at the side (north) of this detached period house, and a single-storey lean-to design extension at the rear. The two-storey extension will accommodate a single garage.

Description of Site

The application dwelling has brick walls, slate roof and timber window frames. A tall hedge/trees forms the side (north) boundary, and there is a low brick wall with piers at the front.

A two-storey bay window feature with vertical timber gable projects towards the road at the front of the property, and there is a timber pitched and gable roof porch. A two-storey gable element exists at the side (north), which is set back a good distance from the front of the dwelling.

Description of policy framework

The site lies within the urban area and Special Character Area (SCA). Policies DES8 and BUCON6 of the Local Plan are applicable.

Analysis of Issues

The principal issue is the impact on the character of the existing dwelling and SCA.

The proposed two-storey extension is at the side of the dwelling, and is to be attached to the existing two-storey projecting element also at the side. It will be set back a good distance from the front of the property and will be viewed as a subservient addition as a result.

The integral garage will therefore also be set back from the front of the dwelling, and will not be prominent in the street scene. The siting of the extension will allow two cars to be parked off the road (to include the garage as one space), which meets with the Council’s car parking standards. No objection is raised by Dorset County Highways.

The Council’s Conservation Officer raises no objection to the proposal, subject to minor detailing amendments to the eaves of the extensions. Amended plans have been requested to show this, and it is hoped that these will be received prior to the meeting.

With regard to the Town Council’s comments, it is considered that the proposal does not require a site survey, site analysis or design statement on account of its minor nature.

21 Although the draft supplementary planning guidance on SCAs (July 2004) advocates that integral garages should be avoided, and advises that, where space permits garages should be sited at the side of the dwelling well behind the building line, it is considered that the proposed integral garage is acceptable as it is sited well behind the building line.

The proposal is also not considered likely to result in the uniformity of the buildings in the locality being adversely affected.

Conclusions

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable, and will not adversely affect the Special Character Area.

Recommendation

This application is therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Prior to the installation of the windows in the approved extensions, detailed drawings at a scale of 1:20 to show the depth of reveal, glazing bar pattern and cross-section of all new windows shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the windows shall be installed in compliance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the proposed windows do not detract from the character of the dwelling.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/04/1155/FUL

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide 14 apartments (Amended Plans Rec'd 08.10.04) Site Address: 15 And 17 Aldridge Road, Ferndown, Dorset, for Orchard Homes And Developments Limited Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Urban Areas LP Site Notice expired: 8 September 2004 Advert expired: 10 September 2004

22 Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 November 2004

Ferndown Town Council Objection - The committee expressed great concern Comments: regarding the loss of parking provision for this development. The committee’s original objection to the development still stand.

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development The proposed parking is less than the recommended Liaison Officer minimum of 1.5 per dwelling but if you are minded to approve I would have no highway objection.

English Nature At the present time English Nature is not seeking to raise formal objections to proposals, such as the current proposed development, that lie in the vicinity of European sites but beyond 400m access. However, I trust that the comments made in my previous letters dated 5 December 2003, 13 February 2004 and 26 March 2004 remain a consideration.

EDDC Tree Section The proposal submitted and described in Barrell Treecare letter dated 20 Aug 2004 is unacceptable. The new area of car parking is shown partly within the tree protection area, without any justification as to why this is acceptable. The fencing suggested leaves no working space around the parking spaces to construct them. The fencing for tree 601 has already been reduced for the garage, it is not acceptable to reduce it on a second side.

I suggest space 4 is deleted or evidence submitted detailing how the tree will be protected. Amended plans are awaited.

Neighbour Comments:

J G Davies 4 Aldridge Road, Out of character with environment. Affect the local Ferndown amenities and infrastructure. Highway/parking concerns. Set precedent.

L Taylor 12 Aldridge Road, Change the character of the area. Highway/Parking Ferndown concerns. Overpowering presence.

Mr D Varley 1 Aldridge Road, Parking Concerns. Out of character with areas. Ferndown Detrimental to those already living there, resulting in increased noise, pedestrian and vehicular activity.

Mr R Elvidge 10 Aldridge Road, Inadequate parking. Out of character. Overdevelopment. Ferndown Overbearing. Affects the setting and exerts great impact on the street scene. Does not comply with supplementary planning guidance No27.

Mr D And Mrs H Novelle 8 Overdevelopment. Parking concerns. Detrimental effect

23 Aldridge Road, Ferndown on neighbours and lead to a deterioration in local amenity.

Mrs C L Craggs 11 Elysium Parking concerns. Impinge on neighbouring properties by Court, 19 Aldridge Road overlooking adj gardens and houses. Highway concerns.

Mr M J Bracey 2 Aldridge Parking and highway concerns. Road, Ferndown

J M T Morris 14 Lone Pine Gross overdevelopment of the area. Not in keeping. Drive, West Parley Highway concerns. Potential water supply problem in the area.

Mrs L Pembridge 11 Aldridge Parking/Highway concerns. Road, Ferndown

The Owner/Occupier 6 Aldridge Out of character with the immediate environment. Road, Ferndown Highway/parking concerns. Would create precedent which would be detrimental to Aldridge Rd.

Mr And Mrs Hendy 13 Aldridge Increased traffic. Accessibility and overflow problems to Road, Ferndown the pumping station. Tree concerns. Increase in noise, fumes and activity.

Mr A Green 2 Elysium Court, Parking/highway concerns. 19 Aldridge Road

Mr And Mrs R Tonkin 7 Elysium Water/Sewage problems. Inadequate parking. Court, 19 Aldridge Road

Mrs B Flack 8 Elysium Court, Parking concerns. 19 Aldridge Road

Mr N Giller 2 Greenways Court, Parking/highway concerns. 21 Aldridge Road

Mr And Mrs G Millward 5 The extra traffic and density of populous in the road would Greenways Court, 21 Aldridge go against the wishes of the people in the road. Concern Road with the environmental impact. Access for emergency services a concern. Over development. Parking concerns.

Mr And Mrs Bedding 8 Parking concerns, over development, impact on character Greenways Court, 21 Aldridge of area. Road

Mrs D Scamell 6 Lone Pine Highway concerns. Spoil quiet area. Drive, West Parley

I J Hamilton 161 Golf Links Highway concerns. Serious environmental and safety Road, Ferndown problems.

Mr And Mrs D Rogers 10 Parking concerns. Greenways Court, Aldridge

24 Road

FT And A M Jones Pinefields, Over developed area. Highway concerns. 153 Golf Links Road

Mr S P Taylor 12 Aldridge Change the character of the area. Highway/Parking Road, Ferndown concerns. Design not in keeping.

Miss G Stainforth Flat 1, Parking concerns. Character of area will be changed. Greenways Court

Mrs Elvidge 10 Aldridge Road, Affect the setting and exert great impact on the street Ferndown scene. Attention drawn to Supplementary Planning Guidance no 27.

Officers Report:

This application comes before the Committee on account of the objection raised by the Town Council and in excess of 3 letters of objection in the light of the Officer recommendation of approval.

Description of Proposal

This is an application for the demolition of two existing detached dwellings and the erection of 14 flats in two blocks. The proposal is classified as a ‘major development’.

Description of Site

Aldridge Road is a cul-de-sac accessed from Lone Pine Drive. Along its first part it is characterised by detached houses in large plots. To its end the land falls sharply towards a turning head. At this part of the road are two blocks of 3-storey flats, Elysium Court & Greenways Court. The application site adjoins Elysium Court on the western side of Aldridge Road. 15 Aldridge Road is currently occupied by a split-level, 3-storey property, whilst No. 17 is single storey.

Description of policy framework

The application site lies in the urban area and it is considered that policies HODEV1, HODEV2, DES8, DES12 and TRANS10 are relevant.

Analysis of Issues

Members will recall considering a similar application at this site in April this year, which was approved following a site visit. That application included a strip of land along the north-east boundary of the site which formed an access drive to an existing Wessex Water pumping station. The approved development was to utilise this access to serve seven parking spaces to the rear of Block 2.

The applicants have been unable to acquire this strip of land from Wessex Water and therefore have submitted this revised application on a reduced site with the lost car parking spaces relocated elsewhere.

The proposed buildings to accommodate flats have not altered since the planning approval, and the proposal is to erect 14 units in two 3-storey blocks sited in the approximate position

25 of the existing dwellings, whilst allowing a two storey appearance as some accommodation is in the roof. The block on the site of No. 15 (‘Block 1’) includes six units, one of which is a maisonette (i.e. a flat on two floors) and five integral garages. 8 flats are proposed in the block on the site of No. 17 (‘Block 2’).

The revised application, as originally submitted, proposed 18 on-site car parking spaces as a result of deleting the seven spaces next to the Wessex Water pumping station. This level of provision was considered insufficient given that the site was not in a town centre or particularly accessible by public transport.

Amended plans have now been submitted to show seven surface parking spaces and two car port blocks containing nine car ports in total. Together with the 5 integral garages, a total provision of 21 spaces will be provided. This is the same level of provision (1.5 spaces per unit) as the previous permission (03/1155).

The site area has been reduced since the previous application, however, at 14 units the density of the scheme is still between 30 – 50 dwellings per hectare, which is in line with government guidance set out in PPG3 – Housing.

In terms of the requirement for affordable housing, as the development neither exceeds the site area (0.5ha) nor the number of units (15 units or above) which would trigger an affordable housing contribution and makes efficient use of the land, it is not considered that an affordable contribution can be required in relation to this development.

27 letters have been received in respect of the proposals. These raise the following concerns;

1.1. Increased traffic and noise, leading to congestion and on-street parking. 1.2. Out of character and over development. 1.3. Loss of trees & effect on wildlife. 1.4. Increased overlooking. 1.5. Turning head at end of cul-de-sac already very busy. 1.6. Aldridge Road is quiet & secluded road. 1.7. Overbearing impact. 1.8. Lack of parking provision

The Highways Authority does not object to the proposals.

Following comments received from English Nature, the applicant has carried out both a bat and badger survey at the time of the previous application. On the basis of these, English Nature does not object to the proposals provided that measures recommended in the reports are a condition of any permission and details of the drainage are agreed.

There are a substantial number of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order to the rear of the site. Your Tree Officer has inspected the proposals and raised initial concerns on the position of four relocated parking spaces towards the rear of the site. Negotiations have taken place with the applicants’ Tree Consultant and amended plans showing revised construction and tree protection are awaited.

The site lies within the urban area where redevelopment is acceptable in principle. No. 15 also lies within an Area of Special Character, although No. 17 is outside this area. The concern of objectors with respect to the traffic impact of the proposals is noted. However, the Highways Authority has no objection to the proposal and will not support a refusal on highways grounds.

There have been no changes in relation to traffic impact since the original application was approved earlier this year.

Conclusions

The siting and design of the blocks remain unchanged from that previously approved by Members earlier this year. The development remains in keeping with the character of the area and no further trees are shown to be removed. The parking provision at 1.5 spaces per unit is in line with Central Government advice. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Recommendation

Subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans in relation to tree protection and no materially new objections being received within the remaining consultation period, the application is recommended for approval.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality.

3 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.

27 4 Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed materials to be used for the windows, external doors and balconies shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

5 Plans and particulars showing a scheme of foul sewers and surface water drains, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details concurrently with the rest of the development and in any event shall be finished before the building is occupied.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal and to avoid flooding.

6 Plans and particulars showing the alignment height and materials of all walls and fences and other means of enclosure, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved. Such details as may be agreed shall be implemented in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the building to which these elements relate, maintained for a period of five years and any structural or decorative defect appearing during this period shall be rectified and the enclosure shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the enclosure details of the proposal and its implementation and retention.

7 No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until all of the protection and mitigation work required in Part 5 (Recommendations) of the Reptile Survey by PGB Conservation Ltd dated June/July 2004 (as submitted with application 3/03/1155), have been carried out in full to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with English Nature. Thereafter the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the requirements of the report, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the protection of reptiles which may be present at the site.

8 The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the recommendations in Parts 7.1 and 7.2 of the bat survey by Michael Woods Associates dated January 2004 as submitted with application 03/1155.

Reason: To ensure the works do not adversely impact on bats which may be present at the site.

9 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the related access road(s) and parking provision shall have been constructed and surfaced to a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority and these areas shall be thereafter retained and kept available for these purposes.

Reason: To minimise the likelihood of car parking outside the areas provided for car parking, in the interests of highway safety.

28 10 Prior to the commencement of development, the first 4.5 metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, shall be laid out, constructed, hardened and surfaced, to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

11 There shall be no gates hung so as to form obstruction to the vehicular access serving the site.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

12 The fencing for the protection of the preserved trees shall be erected in accordance with BS5837:1991 Trees in Relation to Construction fig 5 and detailed on plan BT1 ref: RD235AIA-DC3 prepared 12/02/04. It shall be positioned as shown before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The fencing shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged.

13 A method statement detailing all tree protection measures required for the protection of the existing trees on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development commences on site.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged.

14 Plans and particulars showing the finished floor levels, related to ordnance datum or fixed point within the site, of the ground floor of the proposed building(s), (and as appropriate the closest adjacent building beyond the site) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and development shall not be commenced until these details have been approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal having regard to the existing site levels and those adjacent hereto.

15 The box bay windows and oriel windows to the south and west elevations of Block 1 as detailed on Drwg. No. 1852-PL-05 Rev. B shall not be altered without the prior express grant of planning permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy of the adjoining property.

Informatives:

1 Bats and their roosts are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981 and as a European protected species under EU Habitats Directive. If bats are found on site, work should stop and the advice of English Nature should be sought.

2 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any

29 works on the public highway, the Area Surveyor should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. He can be contacted at the following address: Area Highway Manager (East), Dorset County Council, Stour Park, Blandford St Mary, Dorset, DT11 9LQ alternatively by telephone on 01258 450048.

3 The applicant is informed that to conform to the terms of Section 163 of the Highways Act 1980, surface water should not be allowed to drain directly from the site onto any highway and the Local Highway Authority will require adequate safeguards to be incorporated into the development to ensure that such a situation does not arise.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/04/1225/FUL

Proposal: Erect Double Garage (Revised Application)

Site Address: Heatherstone, 74 Moorlands Road, West Moors, for Mr D Pratt Constraints Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Site Notice expired: 3 October 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 29 September 2004

West Moors Parish Council Comments:

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development No objection in principle Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Mr Fry 63 Moorlands Road, Objection (as letter of 15.05.2004). Applicant's business West Moors has been importation/construction of wooden chalets - concerns about future use of 'garage' as residential holiday chalet (lattice fence is preventing use of building as a garage).

Mr Pentelow 61 Moorlands Objection. Out of character, obtrusive, too close to Road, West Moors pavement, no evidence of guttering, unmatching roof tiles, overlong for its intended use and no evidence that it is being used as a garage.

Mr And Mrs Preston 65 Objection. Concerns regarding size, design and prominent Moorlands Road, West Moors position. Garage has been sited nearer the boundary than shown on earlier approved plan.

Mr And Mrs Stacy Sylvan Objection. Concerns regarding size, position and style and Glade, 78 Moorlands Road possible future usage as the property already has a garage.

Officers Report:

The site is located within the urban area of West Moors and within an area designated within the Local Plan as a Special Character Area. The existing property is a detached chalet style bungalow with Velux windows facing front and dormer windows at the rear. There is a mature hedgerow set behind a timber fence at the site frontage which helps screen the property from Moorlands Road.

Planning permission was granted in August last year under planning reference 3/03/0949 for the erection of two extensions to the property (at the side and rear) and a new double garage within the front garden.

This application, submitted in retrospect, seeks to retain a garage of different design within approximately the same location. The application comes to Committee as a result of the Parish Council comment and local representations objecting to the garage, as built.

The approved plans indicate the erection of a double garage within the front garden measuring 6m x 6m and 5m in height. The application for the garage, as built, proposes a garage on a smaller footprint (of 5.28 x 5.3) with a lower roof (4.15m) than previously approved. The roof has, however, been designed to have greater eaves overhang ( 0.5m overhang) than that previously approved.

The hedge at the site frontage remains. Whilst the roof of the garage is clearly visible above the hedgerow screen and the amended roof design extends the length of roof space visible from the street, the garage, as built, is lower than that originally approved by 0.9m. On balance, therefore, and notwithstanding objections to its amended design, it is not considered that a reason for refusal within this context could be justified.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

Informatives:

1 This permission is granted in accordance with Section 63 (2) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/04/1272/FUL

Proposal: Retain single storey side extension (retrospective).

Site Address: 28 Pennington Road, West Moors, Ferndown, for Mr And Mrs I Stevenson Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Site Notice expired: 8 October 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 1 October 2004

West Moors Parish Council Object on planning grounds below:- Comments: Too close to No 26. Will take light from neighbour. Also out of character with the area of garage linked development.

The applicant has already built the extension without approval and it should be restored to original condition.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr And Mrs Warner 26 Object strongly. Concerns that extension has been built in Pennington Road, West Moors breach of planning regulations, has resulted in loss of light and outlook and has affected value of property. Further letter - Extension is over 4 metres high and within 2 metres of the boundary. The roof overhangs the boundary. Access moved from the edge of the bungalow to side of fence leading to a reduction of privacy.

Officers Report:

This proposal is on the agenda because there is an objection from the Parish Council which conflicts with the recommendation.

This is a retrospective application to retain a small side extension to an existing bungalow. There is an objection from the neighbours at No. 26 on the grounds of loss of light to their adjacent kitchen window.

The extension has a floor area of only 11.9 sq.m. Whilst the side wall of the extension has been ‘angled’ to provide a footpath between the extension and boundary fence, the gable overhang is up to the boundary at one point. The position of the extension will, to some extent, affect the outlook and take some light from the neighbour but it is not considered so serious to justify a refusal of this application.

The circumstances of this case are that this development could have been built as ‘permitted development’ ( ie it would not have needed planning permission) if it the roof were less than 4m. above the original ground level. This was the original intention of the applicant and it only required a planning application when the building operations resulted in the height exceeding 4m. by 0.3m due to the original ground level being raised.

If planning permission were refused and enforcement action taken a reduction in height of 0.3m would take the extension beyond planning control. A change of that nature would not

32 have any materially beneficial effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of No.26. In these circumstances therefore there is a favourable recommendation.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 11. Ref: 3/04/1230/COU

Proposal: Beauty Salon and Retail

Site Address: 5 Pennys Walk, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mrs Hartley Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Urban Areas LP Town Centre Policy Area LP Airport Safeguarding (15m high) Site Notice expired: 10 October 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 5 October 2004

Ferndown Town Council No objection. Comments:

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development No objection. Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Mrs S Langford Futureshape, Wants similar conditions as 74 Victoria Rd to be imposed. 74 Victoria Road

Officers Report:

This application comes before the committee as the proposal is contrary to Policy FWP5 of the Local Plan.

Description of Proposal

This proposal is for the change of use of this currently redundant ground floor commercial premises to a beauty salon with ancillary retail and A3 usage. The premises was previously a bank.

The applicant has provided a covering letter detailing the activities she wants to undertake on the premises. These include; offering a range of beauty treatments, aromatherapy, ear piercing, chiropody, physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractic clinic, homeopathy, nutrition, colonic irrigation, laser treatments, collaten, restylane, isologen and teeth whitening. Light lunches and refreshments for clients are proposed, and there will be a retail area in the front

33 of the shop where beauty and health products are to be sold, to include confectionery, biscuits, preserves teas and coffees. A wedding, make-up, photography, cake and chauffeur service is also proposed to be run from the premises.

It is considered that the proposal represents a mixed use as a result.

Description of Site

The application site is a ground floor shop with display window that is within the shopping area of Pennys Walk, Ferndown.

Description of policy framework

The application building lies in the Ferndown Commercial Centre where policies SHDEV1, FWP5 and FWP7 apply. Within this area the preservation or enhancement of the vitality and viability of town centres is encouraged. A mix of uses is encouraged to include retail, community and services. The proposal is a mixed use and essentially a service use, therefore the principle of the proposed uses would appear acceptable.

Planning History of Site

The planning history of the site reveals that there have been two applications approved recently at the site. These were 3/02/0983 for change of use of ground floor units to A3/A1/D1 or A2 (however this was never implemented) and application 03/0583 for change of use from retail to café with offices at first floor which was also approved (no record of this being implemented either).

Members may recall an application for a health and fitness studio (02/1265) at Unit E Ferndown Centre. The site address was 25 Pennys Walk, which is to the south west of 5 Pennys Walk. This was approved at Committee against officer recommendation on the 9th October 2002. The permission was granted with a condition that required a retail area and shop window display.

Analysis of Issues

Policy FWP5 generally allows proposals in use classes A1, A2, A3, B1 and community uses, and states that only shop uses (A1) will be permitted at ground floor level. The proposed use is a mixed use and has an element of retail. It will retain the shop window and should therefore not result in a dead frontage.

This unit has been empty for some time, with no retail use at ground floor level. Although the proposal is not wholly retail, the use will have a shop window and is likely to generate vitality. In conjunction with the fact that the unit has been unused for some time, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.

As the application is at ground floor level and is not considered to be a use that is likely to generate excessive noise, it is considered that Policy FWP7 is satisfied.

In the light of the permission given at Unit E, Pennys Walk, it may be difficult to refuse the application on the basis that it does not represent a wholly A1 (retail) use.

Conclusions

It is considered that the proposal is acceptable as it will allow a use at ground floor level in a commercial unit that has been empty for some time. The unit is currently redundant and appears as a dead frontage, which is not desirable under policy FWP5. It is considered that the proposal is warranted given its shop window and vitality that it is likely to bring to the commercial area.

Recommendation

This application is therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The retail area shown on the submitted plan shall be used primarily for that purpose and a shop window display shall be provided and related to the approved retail element and thereafter retained.

Reason: To maintain the vitality of the primary shopping area.

Informatives:

1 The proposal represents a mixed use. Therefore should the application site be required for a different mix of uses to that approved, a planning application will be required.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 12. Ref: 3/04/1307/FUL

Proposal: Erection of Front Boundary Wall - Retrospective

Site Address: 137B Lions Lane, Ashley Heath, Ringwood, for Mr And Mrs C Stubbs Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Site Notice expired: 14 October 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 7 October 2004

St Leonards Parish Council Objection. Recommend refusal, in breach of original Comments: planning condition, totally out of character.

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development No comments received at the time of writing the report. Liaison Officer No objection in principle.

EDDC Tree Section No comments received at the time of writing the report.

Neighbour Comments: Susan Willetts 33 Bushmead Out of keeping with the frontage of other properties Drive, Ashley Heath (natural hedging and trees)

Officers Report:

Planning History and Description of Proposal

This application comes to Committee as a result of the Parish Council’s comments and at the request of Councillor Warman.

Planning permission was granted in December 2002 under reference 3/02/1351 for the erection 2 bungalows in place of the existing dwelling. A further application for amended plans was granted permission under 3/03/0195 and it is the dwellings under this consent which have now been built. A wall with brick pillars and fence panel inserts has been erected to the front boundary of plot 2 (now 137B) with Lions Lane which is in excess of 1m in height and can therefore not be constructed under Permitted Development rights. It was not shown on the original drawings or drawings for the boundary treatment, as these showed the existing hedgerow to be retained. However, there was no condition when planning permission was granted which specifically required this hedgerow to be retained along the front boundary of the site. This is a retrospective application to allow the retention of the boundary wall.

Description of site

This site is directly opposite the turning to Bushmead Drive, off Lions Lane. It is therefore accepted that it is clearly visible when approaching Lions Lane from Bushmead Drive but is not significantly prominent when driving along Lions Lane itself. This is one of a pair of bungalows recently constructed which are set back from the road by at least 12m. There are trees within the front garden and the adjacent plot number 137a has brick piers to either side of the driveway but has retained the hedgerow to the front. There are a variety of boundary treatments along Lions Lane, including fencing, walling and hedgerows.

Policy framework and analysis of issues.

The site is within the defined urban area of Ashley Heath. Policy DES8 (para. 6.300) of the EDLP is relevant to this proposal, in that proposals should be compatible with or improve their surroundings in terms of inter alia: design, materials and visual impact. The main issue in this case is whether the front boundary wall with brick piers and fence panel inserts is detrimental to the visual appearance of the area.

36 There are a number of other cases of front boundary walls in Lions Lane and this is not considered to be out of character with the area as a whole. The total road frontage of the site is only just over 15m in width. It is considered that this wall has no material impact on the visual amenities of the area which would justify refusal of the planning application and it is therefore considered to comply with policy DES8 of the EDLP.

The other issue is whether the wall conflicts with the sight lines when exiting the driveway. The splays to the wall either side of the entrance are set back in accordance with the highway authority’s requirements as stipulated on the planning permission.

Recommendation

The application is therefore recommended for approval. No conditions are required as this is a retrospective application.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

Informatives:

1 This permission is granted in accordance with Section 63 (2) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Policy Considerations