Committee Report

Everyone 7 128 791 rep_agd_ID Draft 1 Planning 3 0 5, 7, 11 rep_exe_IDsYes No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes 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 No No No No NoPE1, PL1, PL3 09/03/04 09:30:22 District Planning Officer Old 52 1

East Dorset District Council Planning, Licensing and Enforcement Committee Agenda Item No 6 9th March, 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Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.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: District Planning Officer Contact Officer: Michael Hirsh, Assistant District Planning Officer Financial Implications: None Council Priorities: PE1 PL1 PL3 Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the District Planning Officer's recommendations.

1. Applicable Specialist Service Area(s) 1.1 Planning and Economic Development

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. 3/03/1413/ADV Manor Farm, Manor Road, Gussage St Michael 2 4 2. 3/03/1562/FUL Verwood Town Football Club, Potterne Way, Verwood 4 11 3. 3/03/1578/OUT 59 Wayside Road, St. Leonards, Ringwood 7 29 4. 3/03/1580/REM Land At Station Road, Station Road, Wimborne 11 39 5. 3/03/1652/FUL Land At Cannon Hill Plantation, Cannon Hill Road, 21 Colehill 44 6. 3/03/1676/FUL Land At The Warren, Badgers Walk, Ferndown 29 7. 3/03/1696/FUL Cedar Lodge, Green Bottom, Colehill 34 8. 3/03/1700/FUL Moors Valley Country Park, Moors Valley Country Park, 39 Ashley Heath 9. 3/03/1704/FUL Land At B3081, Sixpenny Handley, Salisbury 41 10. 3/04/0021/COU 483 Ringwood Road, Ferndown, Dorset 44 11. 3/04/0047/FUL 93 Woolsbridge Road, Ashley Heath, Ringwood 46 12. 3/04/0050/FUL 60 Elmhurst Road, West Moors, Ferndown 49

1 Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/03/1413/ADV

Proposal: Directional Sign as Amended by Plans Received 14.1.04

Site Address: Manor Farm, Manor Road, Gussage St Michael, for Rowe And Son Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Fluvial Flooding Area Groundwater Protection Zone Site Notice expired: 16 November 2003 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Parish Comments: The Gussage St Michael Village Committee is very pleased that the Planning Dept. agrees with its opinion that these signs will help to protect pedestrians and other traffic in the Gussage St Michael centre from increased commercial traffic.

On amended plans received 14 January 2004. It is with considerable dismay that the Gussage St. Michael Parish Meeting finds the Planning Committee has totally disregarded our views on the safety aspect of the two other signs applied for by Mr Rowes Business Centre at Manor Farm in favour of AONB. The same attitude of mind does not seem to be there when other organisations put up many many signs in the same AONB.

The Gussage St. Michael Parish Meeting is very grateful to Mr. Rowe for putting in, at considerable cost, a special road from Manor Farm to the road between the Horton Inn and Thickthorn. Already the village has felt the effect of a diminuation of heavy traffic leading in and out of the village.

Furthermore anyone who knows the area is aware that the corner from Parsonage Hill to the left along Manor Road is at such an angle that a long vehicle can only turn with great difficulty.

At present we are working with the Highways Authority to improve arrangements in the village, e.g. SLOW signs at the bottom of Parsonage Hill, as there have been several incidents involving pedestrians and children.

So we hope that a more sympathetic interest in the safety of residents can be taken. Consultee Responses:

County Highways No objection to amended sign. Development Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

2 Officers Report:

This is an application for a directional sign to an approved business development at Manor Farm. The application comes to Committee on account of the comments of the Parish Council Meeting.

Planning permission was granted for the change of use of buildings at Manor Farm to B1/B2 uses at the Planning Committee of 11 March 2003 (Application No. 3/02/1362). The proposal is for a directional sign to the business units, located at the access to the site on the Horton Road between the Cranborne Road (B3078) and the Blandford - Salisbury Road (A354).

The proposal originally included two additional signs, Sign ‘A’ located on the A354 at the Cashmoor junction and Sign ‘C’ located at the top of Parsonage Hill above the village. The applicant was advised that the extent and size of the signage was considered excessive bearing in mind the location of the adverts within an AONB it was suggested that signs ‘A’ & ‘C’ should be deleted and the size of the remaining sign at the Horton Road entrance reduced. The applicant was also advised of the Highway Authority objection to the erection of signs ‘A’ & ‘C’ on highway land.

Subsequently, signs ‘A’ & ‘C’ have been deleted and the remaining sign reduced in size from 0.915m x 1.22m to 0.95m x 0.65m.

A condition attached to the planning permission 3/02/1362 to convert the buildings to business use requires that access to the site is only to be from the Horton Road access where the sign is to be located and not through the village itself. The concerns of the Parish Meeting are noted, however, the precedent of allowing excessive signage in respect of businesses within the AONB is considered to have far-reaching consequences for the character of the area. Furthermore, the requirements of the condition attached to 3/02/1362 should ensure that the Parish Meeting’s fears over increased traffic and danger within the village itself are not realised.

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

Conditions:-

“Standard Advert Conditions apply”

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: LSCON1 ADDEV1

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/03/1562/FUL

3 Proposal: Erect Shelters for Spectators and Officials and Install Floodlighting at Verwood Town FC Pitch - as amended by plans dated 20 January 2004. Site Address: Verwood Town Football Club, Potterne Way, Verwood, for Verwood Community Association Constraints Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Open Space/Recreational Area LP Site Notice expired: 1 January 2004 Advert expired: 26 December 2003 Nbr-Nfn expired:

Parish Comments: No objection

Consultee Responses:

County Rights Of Way Officer One recorded public right of way directly affected - Bridleway 12 - Verwood. Unaware of any unrecorded paths likely to be affected.

Mr Weaver (Verwood Design Service) has detailed widths available to public, between pumping station and floodlight mast, and also the bridleway and post and rail fence surrounding pitch.

Dimensions acceptable but would recommend that British Horse Society be contacted for their comments regarding this application.

If application successful free passage of public using this public right of way must not be obstructed/restricted. If necessary to close bridleway for any length of time whilst development takes place, application form for temporary closure must be completed/returned at least eight weeks before closure.

Neighbour Comments: Ms Fontaine 11 Sleepbrook 1. son plays for Verwood RUFC - they have put a lot of Close, Verwood work into pitch, see no reason why they should have to change pitches 2. seems to go against stated green belt policies by creating permanent structures

Mrs Rex 21 Sleepbrook Close, 1. misleading app. as refers to football pitch on southern Verwood side of changing facilities (should be northern) 2. Area is rugby pitch cleared 8/9 yrs ago. Safer, more family friendly area of park as partially closed in and well drained. 3. not in public interest to limit usage. If football club require dedicated pitch, should be in non-public area 4. possible detrimental effects on animals and plants (next to SSSI) 5. not supportive of green belt policies

4 Mr Hill 12 Old Sawmill Close, 1. relatively un-used pavilion, built on public land Verwood already out of keeping with surroundings and this proposal further out of keeping with area 2. Potterne Park provided by V.C.A. for use of all sports - purpose built football pitch will limit usage. Concerns that security and safety measures will follow limiting public usage even further

Officers Report: This application, by the Verwood Community Association on behalf of Verwood Town Football Club, proposes the construction of shelters for spectators and officials, fencing and floodlighting on and around the proposed pitch to be used by Verwood Town Football Club at Potterne Park.

The applicant has put the following statement in support of the scheme:

“Verwood Town FC have recently won promotion to a higher division of The Hampshire Football League and the League Regulations for that division require them to upgrade their ground and to provide some extra facilities. Their existing pitch is in the centre of Potterne Park and it is felt that the addition of the required features in that central position would be inappropriate as they would detract from the essential openness of the park. It is therefore proposed to relocate the pitch nearer to the southern boundary by exchanging pitches with Verwood Rugby Club so that the extra facilities are grouped with the existing park facilities, leaving the centre of the park open. As this position is adjacent to Lower Common and the Moors River SSSI. I have consulted with English Nature and they state that they will not object to the grant of Planning Permission.

The proposed work includes the erection of waist-height post and rail fencing to the perimeter of the relocated pitch: a perimeter path for spectators; two small covered areas for spectators (100 minimum combined capacity); two small shelters for trainers and substitutes; and floodlighting to provide 120 lux. I enclose a copy of the relevant part of The Hampshire Football League Regulations and you will see that the proposed work has been restricted to the minimum required to satisfy those regulations. I also enclose a copy of the proposed lighting scheme. The lights are expected to be used on a relatively limited number of occasions, mainly for afternoon games during the winter months.

When considering the application please take account of the following points:-  The proposals provide essential facilities which are genuinely required to continue an existing use of the land which preserves the openness of the Green Belt. Spectator accommodation for outdoor sport is one of the examples of essential facilities listed in PPG2.  New buildings to provide ‘essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation’ are listed in PPG2 as not inappropriate.  The proposals have been kept to the minimum necessary to satisfy regulations.  The layout and siting has been chosen to group with existing development on the site, thus preserving the openness of the Green Belt.  There is no anticipated increase in traffic.”

The location of the pitch as proposed is where the existing rugby pitch is sited, and is to the south east of the Potterne Pavilion and tennis courts. It is adjacent to the training pitch and there are existing floodlights in the vicinity of this site. To the south and east are a line of hedgerow trees. It is therefore not located in the more open part of the park.

5 The application proposes two spectator shelters, which are fair-faced block work structures 12.59m long, 2.69m wide and 2.9m high at their highest part. They are open to the front and sides, with a flat, gently sloping roof. Two trainer’s shelters are also proposed, which are of a similar construction and measure 4.38m x 1.67m x 2.1m high. It is considered that these buildings are the minimum required to meet the needs of the Football Club if they are to remain in the higher league. The floodlights proposed are 15m high columns with lights designed to illuminate just the playing pitch and which are cowled to prevent light pollution. They therefore comply with policy LTDEV1 of the Local Plan .

The site lies within the Green Belt where essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation are not inappropriate developments provided that they maintain the openness of the Green Belt. Small scale spectator accommodation is one of the range of developments considered as acceptable in PPG2 Green Belts.

Bridleway 12 lies adjacent to the proposed re-orientated pitch and Dorset County Council Rights of Way Officers have been in discussion with the applicants agents to ensure that the proposal does not have any impact on the users of this bridleway. The Rights of Way Officer no longer has any objection to the proposal, but has advised that if it is necessary to close the bridleway for any period of time whilst the development takes place, then an application form for temporary bridleway closure must be completed at least 8 weeks before the intended closure.

3 objections to the proposal have been received via e-mail. The first, from Mr Fontaine at 21 Sleepbrook Close comments that his son plays rugby on the existing pitch and sees no reason why they should change pitches, and that the structures go against Green Belt policy. The second is from Mrs Rex of 21 Sleepbrook Close again states that the application site is the current rugby pitch which was hand cleared from waste land by members of the Rugby Club in recent years. She considers that Potterne Park should be available for all and not have parts of it fenced off for the select few. It is also considered that the structures are contrary to Green Belt policies. The final e-mail is from Mr Hill of 12 Old Sawmill Close who objects to unsightly floodlights, dug outs and shelters as not being in keeping with the area. He considers that by restricting this area of Potterne Park to one club, it limits the use of the Park for others. The land is used as a recreational space by all residents of Verwood, and should not be restricted to just one group.

It is considered that this proposal meets the requirements of both national and Local Policy in respect of development in the Green Belt, in particular policy GB2 of the Local Plan, and is therefore recommended for approval.

The applicant’s agent has informed your Officers that although the pitch will be enclosed, it will be available for all to use. The Verwood Community Association have already agreed at a recent Committee meeting to swap the rugby pitch for the football pitch, and the Rugby Club were present at this meeting.

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

Conditions:-

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.

6 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 The floodlights hereby approved shall only be operated during Verwood Town Football Club Hampshire Football League matches and at no other times.

Reason: To protect the rural nature of the site which lies within the Green Belt.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/03/1578/OUT

Proposal: Outline Application (means of access and siting) for the Erection of a Detached Dwelling and Detached Garage, Following the Demolition of Existing Workshop - As amended by plans dated 4th February 2004 Site Address: 59 Wayside Road, St. Leonards, Ringwood, for Mr Elliot Constraints Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (15m high) Site Notice expired: 9 January 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 11 March 2004

Parish Comments: No objection subject to the following conditions being met:-

1. Sole Residence

2. Industrial use surrendered

3. Are marked in black to be used only as a paddock for sole residence

Consultee Responses: County Highways Before I can make my formal recommendation the Development Liaison Officer following amendments should be noted.

7 1. Proposed dwelling should be served by single access with 3m x 60m visibility splay and on site turning and parking facilities.

Neighbour Comments: Mr Morris 48 Wayside Road, In principle, a residential property would be more St Leonards acceptable than an lorry business. If planning permission is granted it should have the following conditions.

1. Ceases the lorry business. 2. No more businesses on the Grange Estate 3. He moves off the Grange Estate completely.

Mr Horton 54 Wayside Road, I support this application St. Leonards I would prefer to see a private dwelling provided that all the industrial _ business use of any kind ceases to occur.

Should application become successful I would hope that it would be conditional preventing parking any commercial vehicles of any kind.

Officers Report: This application, in outline, proposes the erection of a dwelling on land at 59 Wayside Road to replace an existing workshop on the site. The only matters to be considered at this stage are siting and access, all other matters are reserved.

The site lies within the Green Belt and has a long history of Enforcement. In 2002, following an enforcement appeal, it was established that the lawful use of No 59 Wayside Road was for the repair of horseboxes. The extent of this lawful use covers the whole of the property at 59, which comprises a large corrugated metal workshop building measuring approximately 12m x 11m which is high enough to work on a horsebox within it, and the land around it. The use of the site is not limited to the workshop building only, nor are there any restrictions on the hours of operations or the number of vehicles that can be on the site at any one time, excepting that they shall all be present in connection with the repair of horseboxes only.

The existing use on the site therefore represents an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt.

Planning permission was refused in June 2003 under reference no. 3/02/0987 for a replacement, purpose built workshop on the site of a similar size to that that currently exists on site on the grounds that it represented an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. Consent was granted on a temporary basis (to September 2004) to retain 4 box van bodies to be used for storage in association with the workshop use under reference no. 3/02/1009.

The current application, as amended, proposes the construction of a dwelling with a footprint of 12.5m x 8.5m, with a detached double garage, on land fronting onto Wayside Road. It is proposed to remove the workshop building to the rear of the site and to cease the non conforming business use on the premises.

8 The applicants agent, in his letter in support of the proposal states that:-

“We appreciate that the proposal to erect a dwelling within the Green Belt is contrary to the Local Authority’s policy, however following the various applications and appeal decisions we believe that an approval (for a dwelling) might constitute a planning gain and consequently provide some certainty for the local resident and is therefore worthy of consideration.”

He goes on to state that there are currently eighteen vehicle movements a day from the site, which could increase if the applicant’s business was to expand, and that the existing workshop will remain on site, and could be incrementally rebuilt as repairs operations and is therefore a permanent building in the Green Belt. The agent also brings to the Committee’s attention two recent examples within the District where consent for dwellings has been granted for dwellings in the Green Belt to replace other, non conforming uses, namely the former Greyhound Kennels at Ringwood Road, St Leonards, and the long established industrial site at Felicity, Burts Lane, Mannington.

2 letters from local residents support the application. The occupier of 54 Wayside Road would much prefer to see a private dwelling house on the land provided that all the industrial and business uses of any kind ceases to occur. The second, from 48 Wayside Road, considers that in principle a residential property here would be more acceptable than an old lorry business, but would wish the following conditions to be applied – the lorry business ceases as soon as consent is granted, the applicant runs no more businesses on the Grange Estate and that he moves off the Grange Estate completely.

The Parish Council also support the principle of the development, provided the industrial use is surrendered and that the land to the rear of the dwelling is used as a paddock.

It is considered that the issues in this case are finely balanced. The lawful use of the site is a non confirming industrial operation in the Green Belt with a history of Enforcement actions and neighbour complaints. The proposed dwelling is also a non conforming use in the Green Belt. However, if planning permission were to be granted for this dwelling it gives the Authority the opportunity to remove the existing large workshop from the site, the storage buildings and to cease the commercial use of the whole of the premises, which it could be argued has a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the residential occupation of a dwelling that has a slightly smaller footprint than the existing workshop. It is therefore recommended that consent be granted for the proposed dwelling, subject to the applicant first entering into a S106 Legal Agreement to ensure that prior to the construction of the dwelling hereby approved, the workshop building and associated storage in van bodies and other structures and in the open shall have been removed from the applicants land at 59 Wayside Road in their entirety and that the use of the site for the repair of horseboxes shall have ceased.

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

Conditions:-

1 a) Before any development is commenced details of all 'Reserved Matters', that is the following matters in respect of which details have not been given in the

9 application and which relate to the design, external appearance of the dwelling and garage, means of access to the building(s), landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (b) An application for approval of any 'Reserved Matters' must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. (c) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (i) the expiration of five years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission, or (ii) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the Reserved Matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by the provisions of Article 3 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995: (1) of the (b) and (c). These conditions are required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 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.

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no extension to the dwelling(s), porch, garden shed, greenhouse, garage or car port shall be erected nor any hardstanding area extended without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: The site lies within the Green Belt where additions to the dwelling or other structures would be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt.

Reason: The building is inappropriate for use other than as a private domestic garage by reason of its relationship to the parent premises and the neighbourhood in which it is situated.

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

10 Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: GB2

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/03/1580/REM

Proposal: Proposed Residential Development of 11 Houses, 20 Flats and 3 Maisonettes Totalling 34 Units and Removal of Condition 5 (As Amended By Plans Recieved 15/01/04, 29/01/04 and 13/02/04) Site Address: Land At Station Road, Station Road, Wimborne, for Barratts Southampton Constraints Housing Area LP Urban Areas LP Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Windfarm Consultation Zone Site Notice expired: 6 January 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 12 March 2004

Parish Comments: Object to removal of condition 5. Comments need to be reported to EDDC Planning Committee

Parish Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways No Objection . Concerns with visibility splays. Development Liaison Officer

EDDC Tree Section

Environment Agency

Poole Borough Council

V Hickman

Neighbour Comments: Mr A H Goff 20B Station Road, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr And Mrs Layton Flat 6 The The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Old Granary, Station Terrace visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Forward 2 Purbeck Court, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Station Terrace visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr And Mrs Thorne Briar House, 34 New Borough Road

Mr Cross 27 Station Road, Wimborne

11 Mr Allen 10 Ingram Walk, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Goodfellow 30 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr And Mrs Miles 43 Avenue The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Prickett Flat 3 Griffin The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Court, Station Road visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Anthony Flat 2 , 2 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr And Mrs Bamforth-White The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Flat 5 The Old Granary, Station visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Terrace Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Stuffell 33 Newborough, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

H P Garley 9 Station Terrace, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

G Hardwicke Address Not The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Supplied, visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

P Davenport Address Not The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Supplied, visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Ms Harrison Address Not The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Supplied, visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Anthony Address Not The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Supplied, visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Unclear Not Supplied, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr An Mrs Johnson Not The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable

12 Supplied, visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Banks 10 Station Road, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Oaliet Ash 12 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr And Mrs Williams 16 The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Station Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking. No fenced off area for children. Floodplain concerns.

Mr And Mrs Saxby 18 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Snay 26 Station Road, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Miss Trinder And Mr Smith 34 The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Station Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

B Cross 27 Station Road, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr And Mrs Dunlavey 19 The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Station Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.Tree concerns. Floodplain concerns.

Mr And Mrs Glenny 17 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Owner/Occupier 11 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Purnell 9 Station Road, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr J Bennetts 7 Station Road, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Roberts 3 Station Road, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable

13 Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

The Owner/Occupier 33 The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Station Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr And Mrs Julian 4 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Tulk 8 Station Road, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Miss Juppe Flat 2, 1 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Wilde Flat 3, 1 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Miss Nevitt Flat 8, 1 Station The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Marriott Flat 24, Griffin The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Court visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Davis Flat 22, Griffin Court The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Coward Flat 16, Griffin The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Court visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Collar 15 Griffin Court, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Station Road visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Miss Baggaley Flat 11, Griffin The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Court visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Woodhams Flat 9, Griffin The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Court visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr Coates Flat 7, Griffin Court The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers.

14 Unrealistic parking.

Mr Harris 4 Ingram Walk, The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mr And Mrs Clash 9 Ingram The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Walk, Wimborne visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Sheridan 25 New Borough The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne Minster visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Mrs Gemmell 27 New Borough The rise in density of site from 27 to 30. unacceptable Road, Wimborne Minster visually . Buildings too high. Highway dangers. Unrealistic parking.

Officers Report: This site is located on the north bank of the River Stour, west of the former railway embankment and open space, near Canford Bridge.

The site is allocated for housing in the East Dorset Local Plan (Policy WIMCO2) with the area adjacent to the river, zoned for Public Open Space.

Outline planning permission was granted to develop this site for residential use in March 2003 following the completion of an Agreement regarding the provision of 25% affordable housing on the site and an Area of Public Open Space adjacent to the river.

All matters were reserved for subsequent approval. However, as part of the site had been known to flood, a flood risk assessment was carried out which required certain flood alleviation measures to be undertaken and the agreed scheme formed part of the outline approval. Essentially, these flood alleviation measures require a riverside corridor of varying width, starting at about 20m wide at the upstream end tapering down to 10m wide at the downstream end and widening out in the middle to protect a group of Alders. A conveyance channel (wide ditch) is to be provided within this corridor with a bottom width of 5m and typical depth of 0.6m. To the rear of this area the existing land levels are to be raised to 18.21 AOD (300mm above the 100yr Stour Flood level upstream of Canford Bridge) and setting buildings with finished floor levels of 18.51 AOD.

The approved outline plans show how the land will be graded and levelled to the new 18.21 contour. This will result in a 30 degree slope embankment rising above the river corridor by approximately 1.7m. The slope will continue down a further 0.6m to the base of the excavated conveyance channel. The area and height of fill will decrease within the site as the land naturally rises away from the river. A 3m wide planting strip is to be provided at the top of the embankment to soften any impact on the river valley (of boundary fences etc) as the Environment Agency has advised at the outset, that no formal planting (other than the existing trees shown to remain) should take place within the river corridor.

The Outline approval was subject to a number of conditions. Condition 5 of that consent required that “the design of the dwellings shall not exceed two storeys.”

15 Your Officers recommended the imposition of such a condition as at the outline stage, no firm proposals had been put forward in relation to the development of this site. Given that the site levels would have to be raised adjacent to the river corridor and the proximity of the existing neighbouring development, it was considered that the design of the dwellings should not exceed two storeys.

If the developer wished to exceed this limitation it would be open to him to apply to relax the condition and convince the Local Planning Authority that the higher buildings proposed would have no significant adverse impact.

The Revised Proposal Members may recall that in September last year, a reserved matters application for 36 dwellings and the removal of the above mentioned condition 5 was refused planning permission following a Site Visit.

The reasons for refusal were as follows:

“1 The northern end of the site with Station Road is characterised by an important group of amenity trees on either side of the site entrance and also along the boundary with Station Road. With the removal of a group of Sycamores at the front of the site in order to provide the required visibility splays, the importance of the remaining trees to public view will be emphasised They will become a more prominent visual amenity and therefore their retention should not be jeopardised.

2. The siting of the proposed access road and position of the block of flats at the site entrance (block 1-9) will have an unacceptable relationship with, and prejudice the retention of, the important amenity trees. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DES8 (para 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002.

3. The site is located in a sensitive and prominent location on land adjacent to the River Stour which is open to view from Canford Bridge and the southern approach to the town. Any development which takes place on this site should be of high quality and respect this important riverside setting. The proposal is unacceptable as it fails to achieve this in part, as the height of the dwellings proposed, combined with the required increase in ground levels as part of the flood alleviation scheme, is considered to be excessive, unduly prominent on the site and out of character with this important riverside location.”

Furthermore, as a consequence of the number of units proposed, the layout has resulted in a height, scale and form of development out of keeping with and likely to have an adverse impact on neighbouring development, particularly No. 14 and 15 Station Road which is unacceptable. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DES8 (para 6.300) and policy WIM102 of the East Local Plan 2002.”

That application is now the subject of an Appeal (written representations) and the decision is awaited.

However, in an effort to overcome the reasons for refusal, the applicants have submitted a revised proposal for consideration. Whilst the amended scheme still seeks an element of three storey development (and consequent relaxation of condition 5 of the outline approval) the heights of the dwellings have been reduced, together with the number of dwellings proposed.

16 A total of 34 dwellings (compared to the previous 36) are now proposed comprising

8 - 3 bed houses 8 - 2 bed flats 3 - 2 bed maisonettes 3 - 1 bed flats 3 - 2 bed houses together with 9 - affordable units comprising 1 - 1 bed houses 3 - 1 bed flats 5 - 2 bed flats.

In order to overcome the access and tree protection issues at the site entrance, the size and scale of the block adjacent to Station Road has been reduced. A block of 4 units is now proposed (compared to the earlier block of 9) which has allowed a smaller footprint and the road to move further away from the western tree line and the site entrance. Both the County Highways Officer and your Tree Officer are satisfied with this revision which overcomes their earlier concerns.

Furthermore, the height of this block has now been reduced from 10.9m to 9.4. This is now a similar height to the existing adjoining development.

The access road continues southwards along the ‘pan handle’ until it diverges and forms a turning head, where the site opens out and the access splits into two private drives. In general the concept of the U-shape layout remains as before. However the blocks have been turned on their axis slightly so that the western block is now parallel with the flank boundary of 14 Station Road.

The two storey dwellings on the western terrace have been moved off the above mentioned boundary (now 12-13m) and the overall heights reduced by approximately 1m to 8.6m. Three storey properties are still incorporated within the northern and eastern terrace block. The eastern terrace (facing the railway embankment) has a ridge height of 9.5m and represents an overall reduction in height of 1.8m from the earlier scheme. Furthermore, dormers have been omitted from the east elevation of this block and replaced with roof windows.

Turning the U-shape block on its axis has resulted in a shortened eastern terrace further away from the base of the embankment. Within this additional space, and to compensate for the shortened terrace, the developer has introduced three additional 2 storey dwelling units facing the river. These units vary in height between 8.6m and 9m.

The north facing terrace of the U-block (which now incorporates flats and maisonettes) remains three storey but the height of this block has again being reduced from 11.6m to 9.5m. Access to the inner courtyard is now via a covered pedestrian walkway with building over.

A separate block of flats is located towards the north west corner of the site adjacent to 14 Station Road. This block accommodates five, 2 bed units and is sited 9m off the northern boundary. The design and siting of the block differs from that previously refused and the ridge height has been reduced from 10.1m to 9.0m which is now similar in height to the existing property No.14 Station Road to the west.

17 Density The gross site area extends to approximately 0.78ha. However, if the proposed riverside open space (to the top of the embankment) is excluded, the net developable area of the site is approximately 0.55ha which gives a net density (involving 34 dwellings) of just under 62 dwellings per ha.

Central Government advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 3 ‘Housing’ (PPG 3) seeks the efficient use of land. It suggests that Local Planning Authorities should avoid developments which made inefficient use of land (those of less than 30 dwellings per ha net) and encourages housing development which makes more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per ha net) and seeks greater intensity of development with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres, or around major roads along good quality public transport corridors.

The previous scheme had a net density of 65 dwellings per ha which your Officers did not consider to be excessive in this location. Indeed, a comparison was made with the existing development immediately to the north of the site (in the triangle comprising nos. 2-12 Station Road and flats 1-11 at 1 Station Road which has a density of approximately 85 dwellings per ha. The previous reasons for refusal were not directed at the density figures per se but the limitations in providing an acceptable layout and impact on neighbouring development brought about the number of units proposed.

It is considered that such issues have now been addressed with the revised scheme.

Parking A total of 48 surface parking spaces are provided. There are no garages in the revised scheme. This gives a ratio of 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling. Advice on car parking requirement is also set out in PPG3 . It states that car parking standards for housing have been applied too rigidly, often as minimum standards. Car parking standards that result, on average in development with more than 1.5 off street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government emphasis on seeking sustainable residential environments. On the earlier scheme, Members accepted this car parking ratio and this did not form a reason for refusal. Again, on balance, this parking provision is considered to be acceptable.

Consultations The Environment Agency has been consulted over the Reserved Matters application and any comments are awaited. However, on the earlier proposal, the Environment Agency had no objections to the proposal given the flood attenuation measures secured at the Outline stage.

To date 49 letters of objection have been received 42 of which are the standard duplicated type objecting to the proposal on a number of grounds, namely

 The density of the most sensitive part of the site has increased from 27.30 dwellings;  Extra buildings squeezed in near to river;  Visually unacceptable,  Buildings still too high for prominent site and condition 5 must not be removed;  Entrance to site will become accident block spot adjacent to market and industrial area; visibility splays cannot prevent this,  Unrealistic parking provision and likely pressure on surrounding street,

18 Additional concerns relation to conflict with planning policies; overlooking, effect on trees and water table; light pollution; no sequential test; public access to river is poor, lack of play space.

Initial proposals have been placed before the Architects Panel and subsequent negotiations based on their comments have resulted in amended plans being received. Further comments on these plans are awaited and will be reported verbally at the meeting.

The submitted landscaping scheme has a number of shortfalls in relation to the proposals for the 3m wide planting strip along the edge of the river corridor. It is anticipated that amended drawings, will be available at the meeting.

The quality of materials will also be important on this site. Discussions have already taken place with the applicants and it is hoped to have a schedule and/or sample of these available at the meeting.

One of the concerns raised by a local resident was the lack of childrens play space within the scheme. This issue has not been raised before or forms part of the earlier refusal reasons. The Councils Recreation and Leisure Officer has been consulted over the proposal and has no objection to the scheme, given the proximity to existing facilities, the accommodation provided and the existence of a ‘secure’ open space within the courtyard area of the U shape block.

Recommendation Local Plan Policy WIMCO2 is specific to this site and allocates the site for housing. It also states that the design and landscaping must reflect the prominence of this riverside site and any development should include public access to the riverbank.

Since the earlier refusal, your Officers have been in negotiation with the applicants in an attempt to address the Committees concerns, in relation to access, potential loss of trees and impacts on neighbouring development and the area in general, particularly in relation to building heights.

With the amendments to the layout and access details shown in the revised plans, your Tree Officer and the County Highways has no objection to the proposal.

Similarly, changes to the height of building, the slight reduction in numbers and siting of the dwellings, has resulted in a development which now, it is suggested, meets the requirements of Policy WIMCO2 and is acceptable.

Subject to receipt of a satisfactory amended landscaping scheme, and materials schedule and the expiry of the outstanding consultation period (12 March), the application is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions.

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

Conditions:-

1 The area shown on the submitted plans as car parking spaces shall be constructed, laid out and provided in all respects before the use hereby permitted is commenced and shall thereafter be kept available for use at all

19 times; no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto and its use as car parking.

Reason: Development without the provision for and maintenance of adequate accommodation for the parking or garaging of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity.

2 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment, no alteration or extension shall be carried out at first floor level, or above first floor level, which materially affects the appearance of the dwelling(s), without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the area as a whole, and to avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

3 All windows shall be set within reveals of at least 100mm.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the building.

4 Plans and particulars at a scale of not less than 1.20, showing details of the roof windows, dormer construction and eaves detail, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and building operations shall be be commenced before these details have been approved.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal.

5 No vents, pipes or extraction fans shall be installed in the external face of any dwelling without prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal.

6 Full details of the design and external appearance of the proposed bin stores shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any building operations are commenced.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal.

7 A 1.8m high solid brick wall shall be erected between points marked A-A on the approved plan before any building operations on the site is commenced.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring development.

Policy Considerations

20 Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/03/1652/FUL

Proposal: 21 Metre Phase 2 Monopole Mast and 6 Atennae 1 x 300mm Microwave Dish, 2 Cabins, Electric Meter and Equipment Compound Site Address: Land At Cannon Hill Plantation, Cannon Hill Road, Colehill, for Vodafone Limited Constraints Policy Area LP Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Windfarm Consultation Zone Green Belt LP Site Notice expired: 21 January 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 7 January 2004

Parish Comments: Objection - There are already two masts in close proximity to the proposed site. To add a further mast with 6 antennae and 2 cabins will double the output from Cannon Hill. This is over-development and unacceptable intensification of use so close to residential development and to Colehill First School. Parish Council are very concerned about the level of emissions from telecom masts and their effect on the surrounding area.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section The proposed mast is to be sited in the centre of a large group of mixed species conifer. A number of these trees are to be removed to accommodate the compound and the necessary access. Given that the trees are not the subject of a preservation order, I have no arboricultural objections to their removal. The trees on the boundary of this group are to be retained, thus concealing the compound from wider visibility.

No arboricultural objections or conditions.

Neighbour Comments: L Richardson 16 Cannon Hill Health concerns Gardens, Colehill

Mrs Smith 44 Canon Hill Health concerns Gardens, Colehill

Mr Foster 54 Cannon Hill Concern for health and safety of local residents. Gardens, Colehill Increase in radiation by 50%. Site close to residential area.

Mrs Hobbs 56 Cannon Hill Health risk. Gardens, Colehill

21 Mr And Mrs Elliott 52 Cannon Proposal would spoil woods affecting amenity. Area will Hill Gardens, Colehill be commercial. Health concerns. Precautionary principle should be adopted.

Mr J Newell 64 Cannon Hill Health concerns - collective impact of masts. Inadequate Gardens, Colehill pre-application public consultation. Impact on amenity. Impact on wildlife. Adequate Vodafone coverage in area. Interference with other electrical equipment. Falling property values. Precautionary principle advocated.

Mr Murray 4 Quarry Drive, Health concerns Colehill

Mrs Bryant 5 Quarry Drive, Health concerns. Colehill

Mrs J Ball 6 Horseshoe Close, Health concerns. Colehill

A Resident - Horseshoe Close, Overdevelopment. Health concerns. Maintenance and Colehill monitoring concerns. Fire concerns. Loss of openness in wood. Loss of visual amenity. Inadequate screening.

Mrs Clifford 12 Cannon Hill Visually intrusive to walkers. Will extend the Road, Colehill commercial area of site that has amenity value. Proliferation of masts at site will increased perceived risk of health impacts. Concern over impacts on public health. Why is additional coverage required. Emissions monitoring should take place at Colehill First School.

Mr Lawson 11 Cannon Hill All objectors to previous mast should have been notified Gardens, Wimborne of proposal. Mast will increase radiation by approx. 50%. Proposal is a health hazard, and emissions from mast still unproven. 500m dwelling free zone should imposed around all masts.

Susan Harrogate , Emissions from mast are dangerous. Need assurance that all residents and school children are safe.

Civic Society , We share concerns expressed by Colehill Parish Council earlier, and are not convinced that this revised application deals with their objections

Mr Stark 53 Bridle Way, Health concerns. Colehill

Cllr Dover 159 Cutlers Place , (representing local residents) - Overdevelopment; Colehill close-proximity to schools and dwellings; health impacts; infringements of Human Rights in relation to family life and a safe environment.

R A Dyke And S J Dyke 46 Health concerns.

22 Cutlers Place , Colehill

Mr Brigden 98 Middlehill Health concerns. Road, Colehill

Mrs Webster 77 Wimborne Health concerns. Road, Colehill

Mrs Scott Address Not Given, Health concerns.

Mr Richards Colehill County Health concerns. School should be monitored by First School, Middlehill Road Vodafone re: emissions.

A J Gooch Firswood , 64 Health concerns. Commercial intensification of site. Middlehill Road

Mrs Johnston 12 Heron Drive, Health concerns. Colehill

Ms Swift 93 Pilford Heath Health concerns. Road, Colehill

Mr Barrett 24 Oakhurst Road, Health concerns. West Moors

Mr Tizzard 14 Swallow Way, Health concerns. Colehill

Mr Goodwin Underhill, Green Health concerns. Insufficient evidence to prove no Bottom health risks from mobile phones.

Mr R Child 21 Lawns Road, Heath concerns. Colehill

Mrs Morgan 12 Swallow Way, Health concerns. Colehill

D Shakespeare 32 Middlehill Health concerns. Road, Colehill

Mrs Hinves Nanoon, Green Health concerns. Bottom

Mr And Mrs Walmisley 117 Health concerns. Middlehill Road, Colehill

Mrs Foster 10 Sunnybank Health concerns. Road, Colehill

Officers Report: At the Committee held on the 17th February 2004, Members visited the site of this application, and as a result of new information coming forward regarding the existing

23 Vodafone site at the Teachers Building Society, resolved to defer the application to allow further information to be submitted by the applicants.

Description of Proposal

This proposal is for the erection of a 21m tall monopole design telecommunications mast together with 6 antennae, 1 microwave dish and associated equipment cabin and fenced compound. The antennae are 2.3m long and the link dish is 0.3m in diameter. The associated compound is 4.45m by 7.8m and to be enclosed with a colour stained 1.8m high fence.

Description of Site

The site is located within the wooded area of Cannon Hill Plantation, and is close to the two existing monopole masts operated by T-Mobile and O2 that were permitted in 1999 and 2000.

The Cannon Hill Plantation is an area that is used for informal recreation such as walking and dog walking, and there are various tracks that dissect the area that are used by local residents. Some of these tracks pass close to the proposed site and to the two established sites.

Description of policy framework

The site lies within the Green Belt and therefore Policy GB2 of the East Dorset Local Plan applies, together with Policy TEDEV1 concerning telecommunications.

Site history

There have been 2 applications for masts approved at the Cannon Hill Plantation. Application 99/0871 was for a 22.5m monopole mast with 3 antennae and 2 dishes, together with equipment cabin for One to One. This application was approved by Committee.

Application 00/1228 was for a 22.5m monopole mast with 3 antennae and 2 dishes, together with equipment cabin for BT Cellnet. This application was refused by Committee, but allowed at appeal.

The refusal was based on health grounds, however the Planning Inspector found no justification for rejecting the proposal on these grounds as an International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) certificate had been submitted which complied with the advice in PPG8 – Telecommunications relating to impact on health from emission of electromagnetic frequencies.

Analysis of Issues

The main issues relating to the proposal are those of need for the development, visual impact, impact on the Green Belt and impact on the health of local residents and people using the Cannon Hill Plantation area.

Need for the development

24 It must be clarified that the need for the mast is not solely due to the loss of the existing site at the Teachers Building Society. At the time of making the application, and up until the 5th February 2004, it was understood that the Teachers Building Society site would be lost. However this is now not the case.

The applicant’s confirm that the Cannon Hill Plantation search area was developed as a separate site for the Colehill area and has never been intended solely as a replacement for the Teachers Building Society installation.

The recently approved site at Long Close Farm, Wimborne (approved under Prior Notification Application 3/03/T.1) was initially developed to replace and upgrade the Teachers Building Society site. The topography restricts the coverage signal from Long Close farm to Colehill, and therefore a new site is required at the Cannon Hill Plantation.

The applicants advise that the new site is needed to provide an improved 2nd Generation service to Colehill, the A31, B3073, East Wimborne, Pilford Heath, Hayes Lane and Canford Bottom areas as these currently suffer from poor coverage. It is also intended to provide 3rd Generation cover for Vodafone in these areas, which does not exist at present. Computer-generated coverage plots to demonstrate this have been submitted.

As a predominately built-up area, the land to the south west of the site will require sufficient signal strength to provide adequate service for indoor use of a mobile phone in a suburban area (i.e. areas coloured red on the coverage plots).

The existing coverage plot shows areas of insufficient signal strength (to provide adequate service for indoor use of a mobile phone in a suburban area) all around the proposed site at the Cannon Hill Plantation (shown coloured white, yellow and green). This plot takes into account the existing site at the Teachers Building Society. Therefore, should the Teachers site be retained, there is still a need to provide improved coverage and consequently a new mast at the Cannon Hill Plantation.

Even after the erection of a new mast there will be small gaps in coverage, but these will be significantly reduced with the construction of the new mast.

Alternative sites have been identified and dismissed for varying reasons. These included the option of sharing the existing masts at the plantation. However, this option would require a higher and bulkier mast to support the required number of antennae, and is likely to be a lattice design, which would have an increased visual impact on the area due to its height and bulk.

Additionally, since the last meeting further justification of why the existing Orange mast at the Brook Road, Wimborne cannot be shared by Vodafone has been submitted.

Sharing this mast would not provide the required level of coverage, and in order to do so would require the increase in height of the mast, together with a new headframe which would increase the bulk and visual prominence of the mast.

PPG8- Telecommunications states that operators are required to provide a high quality service which includes the need to meet reasonable customer demand. The increase in use of mobile phones has required operators to expand networks continually to accommodate requirements of service and quality.

25 The greatest need for base station sites is usually within built-up areas where there is the greatest density of mobile phone users, and within a mile or two of main roads where demands on network capacity are greatest.

The 3G licence requires all operators to build a network to cover 80% of the population by the end of 2007. The 2G licence used to require coverage to areas where 90% of the population lived, however this is no longer applicable.

Vodafone state that there has never been any requirement on how operators meet their coverage figures, and no obligation to provide coverage to specific areas. However, Vodafone are not obliged to avoid providing coverage to specific areas, nor are there any obligations to cease developing network services once the coverage requirements have been met.

The operator can decide where it chooses to locate its sites providing they are operated in accordance with their licence and regulatory obligations.

Visual Impact

The site is located with an area of tall coniferous trees. This will enable the bulk of the mast to be visually screened from long-distance views, and the proposal to paint the mast will allow it to blend into the trees effectively. This is certainly the case with the existing mast that has been painted olive green.

The equipment compounds associated with the two existing masts are visible from the footpath to the north of the site. The addition of a further compound will increase the visual impact on the character of this wooded area. However, it is considered that the provision of a close-boarded timber fence treated or painted a dark colour to surround the compound will mitigate against the impact on the area.

The proposed mast is to be sited in the centre of a large group of mixed species conifers. A number of these trees are to be removed to accommodate the compound and the necessary access. As the trees on the boundary of this group are to be retained thus concealing the compound from wider visibility, your Tree Officer has no objections to the trees being removed.

A planting scheme is also proposed to soften the appearance of the timber fencing and allow further screening. Further details of this have been requested from the applicant, and it is hoped these will arrive prior to the meeting.

Impact on the Green Belt

Cannon Hill Plantation is within the Green Belt, and PPG 8 (Telecommunications) states that telecommunications development in the Green Belt is likely to be inappropriate unless it maintains openness. The proposal is considered to be inappropriate in this respect, as it does not maintain openness as it is a physical structure.

The PPG continues to state that inappropriate development may only proceed if very special circumstances are demonstrated that outweigh the degree of harm to the Green Belt, and the lack of a suitable alternative site that would meet the needs of network coverage might be considered as very special circumstances.

26 The application is supported by a statement that identifies alternative sites for the development, and gives reasons why these sites are unacceptable.

The extensive search undertaken for alternative sites, and the fact that the site is required to provide the necessary 3rd Generation coverage, whilst improving the 2nd Generation coverage is considered to amount to very special circumstances to allow the proposal.

Impact on health of local residents

PPG 8 states that the planning system is not the place to determine the health impacts of telecommunications masts, and that Central Government has responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health.

The PPG continues to state that providing the emissions of electromagnetic frequencies from the equipment do not exceed the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards, then it should not be necessary for a Local Planning Authority to consider further the health impacts and concerns about them.

The cumulative emissions of telecommunications equipment is important in the assessment of the impact on health. PPG8 states that the developer must provide an ICNIRP certificate to demonstrate that the emissions from the proposed installation, together with the existing two installations do not exceed guidelines. This certificate has been received from the applicant which shows compliance with these guidelines.

Conclusions

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its visual impact on the landscape, given the external painting of the mast and equipment cabins matt olive green, and also the close-boarded timber fencing and planting scheme to surround the equipment compound.

The fact that a good number of alternative sites have been explored, and dismissed for varying reasons, and coverage is required to provide an enhanced 2nd Generation service and provide a 3rd Generation service is considered to amount to very special circumstances to allow the development within the Green Belt.

Additionally, sharing of the existing masts at the site would require a lattice tower design mast, which would be far bulkier and taller than the existing masts. The applicant’s agent confirms that such a mast would be in excess of 30m in height to allow all the antennae to be above the tree canopy. Additionally, further trees would have to be removed to make way for the equipment compound, which would require a similar number of cabins to those that exist and are proposed.

Visually, the Cannon Hill Plantation site is considered to be the optimum solution as it affords good levels of screening and is not visually prominent in the landscape.

Vodafone are now using cabinets, which are smaller than the existing cabins at the two installations at the Cannon Hill Plantation.

It is considered that the option of a single lattice tower and enlarged equipment compound is unacceptable therefore.

27 The issue of impact on health is addressed by the submission of an ICNIRP certificate for the proposal, together with an ICNIRP certificate for the two existing sites coupled with the proposed site.

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

Conditions:-

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 mast, equipment cabin and antennae shall be painted a colour to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter, the colours shall not be materially altered unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide a harmonious appearance, and to accord with Policy TEDEV1 of the Local Plan

3 The mast and ancillary equipment hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 10 years from the date of this permission, in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of long-term visual amenity of the site.

4 Should the mast and ancillary equipment hereby permitted be no longer required for personal telecommunications , and the use of the mast has been discontinued, the mast and all ancillary equipment shall be removed and the land restored to its previous authorised state within six months in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure the removal of redundant equipment in the interests of visual amenity.

5 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.

28 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.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/03/1676/FUL

Proposal: Variation of Condition 1 to Extend the time period for Reserved Matters of PP 97/0952 (25 Dwellings with Associated Roads, Access and Parking) for 7 Years from the Date of this application. Site Address: Land At The Warren, Badgers Walk, Ferndown, for Stanborough Developments Ltd Constraints Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Urban Areas LP Safeguarded from Development LP Site Notice expired: Advert expired: 20 February 2004 Nbr-Nfn expired: 18 February 2004

Parish Comments: No objection

Consultee Responses: County Highways No objection subject to imposition of previous Development Liaison Officer conditions.

BP Petroleum Development Would have no impact on BP Wytch Farm's plant and Ltd pipelines.

English Nature Objects to the application on the grounds that there is insufficient information to determine the likely impact of the development on the resident badgers. In particular, it will be necessary to establish how badgers are currently using the site and whether the design layout has taken adequate account of their requirements. I would therefore recommend that the applicant be required to undertake a full badger activity survey on site. The survey should establish the current status of any setts present, make an assessment of any impact the development including landscaping would have on the availability of foraging areas and provide detailed recommendations for mitigating any adverse impacts.

EDDC Tree Section

Environment Agency

29 Neighbour Comments: Mr Storey 14 Martins Drive, Would support a proposal to stop further building. Ferndown Would oppose any increase in number of buildings. Would oppose further loss of trees and open spaces.

Mr Smith 42 Martins Drive, No exit or entrance should be via Martins Drive. Ferndown Frustrated over length of time current building works are taking.

Ms Walters 17 Martins Drive, Concern that houses will be too close to boundary and Ferndown wildlife area. 10m protected band should not have trees or vegetation cleared to maintain privacy and protect badgers. Uncertainty over emergency access to Martins Drive.

R Helyer Quarndon, Maximum retention of trees. Spacing of properties. Woodland Walk Accurate boundary lines to the proposed properties. Maintenance and control of 10m boundary for conservation and wildlife.

Officers Report: Description of Proposal

This application seeks an extension of time to submit reserved matters in respect of an outline approval 3/97/0952 which granted the erection of 25 dwellings with access road and open space at this greenfield site. The application requests seven years to submit the reserved matters from the date of the application (21 January 2004).

For reasons which will be enlarged upon below, Members are advised that the application requires that the District Council consider the principle of the application, and not merely whether it is acceptable for the submission of the reserved matters to be delayed.

Description of Site

The site comprises a wooded area between Martins Drive and Woodland Walk, south of the Ferndown by-pass and north of Badgers Walk and the on-going residential development at The Warren.

Description of policy framework

Outline consent to develop the land was submitted under Application No. 3/97/0952. At the time the application was submitted, the adopted development plan was the Ferndown, West Moors and West Parley Local Plan (1989). Policy 5.16 of the Plan identified the land for residential development stating; “Land north and east of Woodland Walk will be developed for housing at a density not exceeding 2.5 dwellings per hectare (1 dwelling per acre). The design of the development will be required to exhibit a particular regard for the existing character and landscape features of the site. No dwellings will be permitted 100m of the edge of the By-pass carriageway. Access to the site will not be permitted off Woodland Walk. No development will be permitted within the floodplain in accordance with Policy 5.157.”

30 In addition, the East Dorset Local Plan was at the deposit stage and Policy 9.22 similarly identified the land for residential development at an increased density of 2 – 5 dwellings per hectare.

The approval of 3/97/0952 at approximately 10 dwellings to the hectare was at a higher density allowed by the policy and was referred to the Secretary of State who did not wish to intervene.

The outline application was approved on 17 April 2000. Accordingly, when the Inspector considered the East Dorset Local Plan at inquiry in 2001, Policy 9.22 was deleted from the plan as there was an existing commitment to develop the land and therefore a specific policy to develop the site was unnecessary. The plan as adopted therefore includes the site as part of the urban area.

As noted above, this current application requires consideration under the current Development Plan policies. As the site lies within the urban area, Policy HODEV1 applies;

“The development or the redevelopment of land for housing will be permitted on sites within the existing urban areas and village policy envelopes as defined on the Proposals Map, provided that its location and form are appropriate to the physical and visual character of the settlement.”

HODEV2 in relation to the form of housing development is also relevant;

“New housing will be permitted in urban areas and within Village Infill Envelopes where the proposals: (a) make the best use of the available land with higher densities particularly in town centres and places with good public transport accessibility; (b) provide an appropriate range of dwelling sizes and types; (c) retain existing green spaces and recreational open spaces, trees and shrubs, and provide for landscaping as an integral part of the development; (d) create places and spaces which are attractive and respect and enhance local character; (e) promote designs and layouts which are safe and take account of public health, crime prevention and community safety (e) give priority to pedestrians over the movement and parking of vehicles (f) promote energy efficiency (g) include surface water run-off attenuation measures where appropriate as an integral part of the development.”

HODEV5 in respect of affordable housing provision applies.

“On sites which are acceptable for housing in accordance with other policies of this plan, and which could accommodate a reasonable mix of types and sizes of housing, the council will seek by negotiation with developers, to secure an element of affordable housing or special needs housing, when proposals satisfy the following: (a) they are within urban areas on sites of 0.5 hectare or more in size, or where 15 or more dwellings are to be built; or (b) they are within rural settlements, where the population is less than 3,000, of 0.25 hectare or more in size, or where 5 or more dwellings are to be

31 built; and (c) they are within safe and convenient access to shops, education provision and employment opportunities without the use of a car. The need to provide affordable housing must take into account the financial viability of the scheme; the site’s characteristics and the need to achieve a successful housing development. In appropriate cases affordable housing schemes will not be subject to the normal restrictions on density and car parking standards. There is a presumption that affordable housing will be provided as part of the proposed development of the site. In exceptional circumstances it may be acceptable, if agreed between the local planning authority and the developer, for affordable housing (where its requirement is appropriate) to be provided on another suitable site nearby, or for a financial contribution to be made towards the provision of affordable housing in other locations elsewhere in the District in lieu of the actual provision on the site. The size and type of dwellings provided shall reflect the needs of those households requiring affordable accommodation, in accordance with the council’s latest housing needs assessment.”

Analysis of Issues

The outline consent for the site requires submission of the reserved matters within 7 years of the date of the permission (17 April 2000). It is open for the Authority to set a longer time period for the submission of reserved matters and this is often used to allow for the phasing of a large development for example.

In this particular instance, the longer term for the submission of reserved matters was related to Condition 2 of the consent which states;

“No dwellings hereby permitted shall be commenced unless and until the strategic landscaping (to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority) has been implemented and allowed to grow and establish for a period of three years, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

The legal agreement attached to the consent also requires the agreement of the landscaping programme prior to the approval of the reserved matters.

As of this present time, no strategic landscaping scheme has been submitted for approval. It is still possible for the existing permission to be complied with as Condition 1 of the consent requires commencement of the development within 10 years of the date of decision or two years of the approval of the reserved matters.

The application seeks further time in which to submit the reserved matters. Applicants are entitled to apply for additional time to submit reserved matters provided that the time period for submission has not expired. However, Members are advised that legal judgements have established that the Council is then entitled to consider the proposals against their current plans and policies. In particular, the Council takes it legal authority in this respect from the decision in R. Leicester City Council & Another ex parte Powergen UK Ltd (2000) which advised that it would have been wrong to vary the condition to effectively renew the consent when it was clear that the development conflicted with development plan policies. This is to protect against the continued retention of unimplemented consents without further consideration of their merits.

32 Government Circular 11/95, the use of conditions in planning permissions advises that where an application is made to extend the time to submit reserved matters, as a general rule this should only be refused where;

 there has been a material change in planning circumstances since granting of the original consent, or;  continued failure to implement the permission may lead to uncertainty over the future pattern of development in the area, or;  the application is premature because the application has a reasonable time to run.

As shown above, at the time the outline consent was resolved to be granted by Members in May 1999, the relevant development plan had a specific policy identifying the site for low density housing. Since that time, national guidance in PPG3 has changed and now advises that the best use be made of urban land with higher densities particularly in sustainable locations. In addition, the Council’s development plan is now changed and reflects the advice in the current PPG3.

The site is approximately 1 mile from the centre of Ferndown where a range of services are available. It is considered therefore that the site is a sustainable location suitable for development.

The proposed density of development at approximately 10 dwellings per hectare is substantially below the suggested minimum density advised in PPG3 of 30 dwellings per hectare. PPG3 advises that prior to renewing any existing consents, consideration be given to whether the development needs to be amended to accommodate higher quality development which makes the most efficient use of land.

It is potentially acceptable to agree densities of development below that advised in PPG3 where there are particular site constraints. The existing outline application includes an area to be dedicated for public open space, a balancing pond and a 10m buffer zone between the site and existing properties in Martins Drive and Woodland Walk which also serves as a foraging area for an adjacent badger sett. The developable area is potentially further limited by the need for separation of the dwellings from the Ferndown by-pass to protect the occupants from excessive noise.

In spite of currently being a wood, the existing consent identifies approximately 20 of the best trees to be retained in the development, approximately half of these being in one single group. In spite of the constraints, it is clear therefore that the site can accommodate substantially greater amounts of housing than the existing layout of detached properties. The currently approved layout also fails to provide a range of housing types, which the site can provide, contrary to the advice in Policy HODEV2 and PPG3.

In addition there is now a requirement for the provision of affordable housing as part of the development which was not apparent during consideration of the outline consent. The opportunity should be taken to provide affordable housing within the site as part of the development due to the limited numbers of housing sites of comparable size within the District which are likely to come forward during the Local Plan period.

Conclusions

It is considered that there has been a material change in the planning circumstances since the approval of the outline consent. The application therefore needs to be

33 considered against the Council’s current policies. Your Officer’s conclusion is that the development does not make the best use of the land for the reasons stated above and should be refused.

In addition, due to English Nature’s concerns over the need to provide updated information in respect of badger activity at the site, it is considered that a reason for refusal be included in this respect.

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

1 The proposed development, by reason of the number of dwellings proposed and the consequent low density of development, makes inefficient use of urban land. In particular, the site can accommodate a higher density of development and can provide a greater range of dwelling types and sizes than that proposed. Failure to make the best use of urban land is likely to lead to greater pressure for greenfield housing development in unsustainable locations outside of existing urban areas.

The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy HODEV2 (Paragraph 6.163) of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002) and the advice in PPG3 - Housing (2000).

2 The proposals fail to provide adequate affordable housing as part of the development. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy HODEV5 (Paragraph 6.188) of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002).

3 The application contains insufficient information to determine the likely impact of the development on badgers resident at the site. The proposals are therefore contrary to Environment Policy D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan (2000) and Policy NCON1 (Paragraph 6.7) of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002).

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/03/1696/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Existing House to Erect Residential Development of 2 no. Bungalows with Integral Garages (Amended Plans Received 02/02/04 and 24/02/04) Site Address: Cedar Lodge, Green Bottom, Colehill, for Parthenon Projects Constraints Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Urban Areas LP Public Rights of Way Windfarm Consultation Zone Site Notice expired: 11 February 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 2 February 2004

Parish Comments: Objection - Comments need to be reported to EDDC Planning Committee - Overlooking of properties in

34 Lapwing Road, Over-powering in appearance, a one for one replacement no higher than existing dwelling would be preferred, the effect on green belt and the footpath and ditch that border the site. Note - access to the right of way must be protected at all times ditch which is currently blocked must be cleared and remain open.

Consultee Responses: County Highways No objection subject to condition Development Liaison Officer

EDDC Tree Section The amended siting for the footprint of Plot 1 is within that of the existing. Given this amendment, I no longer have any arboricultural concerns with the proposal. The fencing can be erected as detailed on drawing 0264/10.This plan also details hand excavation for service runs in close proximity to the front boundary trees. No objection subject to conditions.

Neighbour Comments: Mrs Uzzell 1 Green Bottom, Objection - Cramped appearance, highway concerns, Colehill noise pollution, being overlooked, interfering with water levels would cause knock on effect

Mr Joynel 14 Lapwing Road, Concern about disruption of natural springs and water Colehill runoff.

Mr Reeve 16 Lapwing Road, Concern that due to drop in levels on the site the land Colehill should be contained within the application site . Requests boundary trees reduced by half to improve light. Concerned about flooding.

Mrs Massey 18 Lapwing Road, Loss of light and privacy to garden, patio and kitchen. Colehill Water runoff onto her site. Loss of light from very high trees. Cramped over-development.

Mr And Mrs Pujol 20 Lapwing Over shadowed and overlooked. Underground springs. Road, Colehill Flooding. Highway concerns.

Mr And Mrs Webb Cuckoo Highway concerns. Too big. Cottage, Green Bottom

Mrs S Hinves Nanoon, Green Object. Out of character with area. Extra traffic Bottom unacceptable on narrow lane. loss of trees, loss of wildlife.

A Resident, Green Bottom Highway issues. Tree concerns. Impact on habitat. Underground springs.

Officers Report:

This proposal comes before Members at the request of the Ward Councillor because of his concerns about over-development, building mass and exacerbation of existing

35 significant drainage problems to dwellings in Lapwing Road and down the public path (Green Bottom to Lapwing Road). It is also brought before Members as the recommendation is contrary to the 9 letters of objection from local residents and the comments of the Parish Council.

Description of Proposal

The proposal is for two detached bungalows to replace the one existing bungalow on the site. Both proposed bungalows have double garages to be set at a higher level than the main dwelling. The bungalows themselves have been set down into the site slightly lower than natural ground level

Description of Site

The site is served from the unmade road of Green Bottom, which drops steeply down from Colehill. A public footpath runs alongside the site linking Green Bottom with Lapwing Road to the north at a much lower level. Nos: 12,14,16,18 and 20 Lapwing Road back onto the site and also Nos: 1 and 2 Green Bottom. To the east, properties in Brackenhill Road back onto the site, from an elevated position.

Planning History

An application for the replacement of the existing bungalow by the erection of two detached two storey houses was refused planning permission under delegated powers on 4 March 2003, because the two storey properties would be too prominent and out of character, having an overbearing impact upon and overlooking properties in Lapwing Road and Green Bottom. There were also highway problems with the scheme. In an informative note the applicant was advised that only single storey properties would be likely to fit on the site and that drainage issues would need addressing in any future applications.

Description of Policy Framework

This proposal is for an urban infill development and the relevant policies are HODEV2 (Para 6.163) and DES8 (para 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan. HODEV2 allows for new housing and seeks to ensure that best use is made of urban land, with appropriate house sizes, landscaping, spacing, parking and drainage arrangements. DES8 requires a good standard of design that provides a layout, scale and bulk, height, materials, landscaping, visual impact, relationship to nearby properties, and relationship with mature trees that harmonises with the townscape and general character of the area.

Analysis of Issues

The plot size in this location is clearly large enough to accommodate two dwellings but the main constraint of the development of the site is its sloping form, which will result in new dwellings being elevated above the bungalows in Lapwing Road below and above 1 and 2 Green Bottom.

In order to reduce any dominating impact to the properties further down the slope in Green Bottom and Lapwing Road, the proposal is now for bungalows, which have been sunk low into the site in order to minimise overlooking from ground level. Sections through the site have been drawn to demonstrate that the floor level of both bungalows will prevent overlooking above the boundary fences. One fence is 2.2 metres high

36 nearest to Lapwing Road, with a 0.4 metre trellis proposed above it, and the proposed fence is to be 2 metres alongside No 2 Green Bottom. These fences will be landscaped within the application site but without the planting of substantial conifers, which in the past have prevented light reaching properties in Lapwing Road.

Plot 1 will be positioned on moreorless the same footprint as the existing bungalow and will therefore have no greater impact upon the mature pines in the adjacent site, nor will it have a significantly greater impact upon No 2 Green Bottom. The additional height of fence screen and landscaping will prevent overlooking of the first floor bedroom window of No 2 Green Bottom, from the lounge and bedroom.

Plot 2 will be positioned facing the properties in Lapwing Road to the north. There will be 20 metres distance between plot 2 and the rear conservatory of No 18 and the nearest corner of No 16 Lapwing Road. Existing fencing with trellis topping will prevent overlooking and the ridge height of 6 metres will ensure that the impact of the dwelling is not overpowering despite the difference of about 2 metres in natural ground level.

In terms of drainage, there is a good deal of runoff from the road of Green Bottom and the application site. Properties in Lapwing Road suffer with the high water table in winter months and are concerned in their objections that redevelopment of this site will result in more hardstanding area and greater runoff from the site. The site of Plot 2 is currently a pond in the garden of the application site.

In accordance with the advice of PPG25 Development and Flood Risk, the advice of the Council’s engineers was sought in relation to the above proposals. This advice confirms that sewerage and surface water drainage for the above development proposal can be accommodated by both public foul and surface water sewers in the footpath to the rear of nos 18 and 20 Lapwing Road. He advises that all runoff from roof and paved areas should be discharged into the public surface water sewer and not to soakaways. There is a right of connection to public sewers, however, the status of the footpath is unknown and easements may have to be obtained to enable the connection to be made.

Regarding any claims that a connection to the surface water public sewer would make flooding worse, there is an absolute right of connection to public sewers and Wessex cannot refuse any connections. The problems referred to are almost certainly caused by springs or natural run off from steeply sloping land. This is an area, due to the local geology and topography that does in places suffer from springs. Discharging run off from the development to a public sewer could only improve such a situation.

Following this advice the applicant has confirmed in writing that the sewerage and surface water runoff would be connected to the public sewer as recommended.

Both properties have double garages at a lower level than the road but higher than the floor level of the bungalows. The County Highways Officer is satisfied that the access and turning will work and that the road is capable of serving one additional property.

Overall, given the constraints of this sloping site, the plans as now submitted will provide an infill development of bungalows which are of an appropriate height, mass and position within the site to relate adequately with surrounding properties and trees. The drainage concerns should be improved by connecting surface water runoff to the public sewer.

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

37 Conditions:-

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

3 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.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment, no alteration or extension shall be carried out at first floor level, or above first floor level, which materially affects the appearance of the dwelling(s), without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the area as a whole, and to avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

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.

6 For the avoidance of doubt, all sewerage and surface water runoff from the site shall be connected to the public sewer at the rear of the site and the connection shall be permanently maintained and retained.

Reason: To prevent flooding of neighbouring properties.

38 7 Details of dimensions and levels of service trenches and other excavations on site insofar as these items may affect trees on or adjoining the site, together with the methodology statement to achieve these works in accordance with principles of BS5837 (1991), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works on site are commenced.

Reason: To avoid any undue damage to trees to be retained on the site.

8 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 approved in writing by this Authority before any development commences on site. The scheme shall be retained throughout the entire construction period and shall be undertaken in its entirety.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/03/1700/FUL

Proposal: Carriage Shed Extension for Narrow Gauge Railway.

Site Address: Moors Valley Country Park, Moors Valley Country Park, Ashley Heath, for Narogauge Ltd Constraints Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Open Space/Recreational Area LP Site Notice expired: 11 February 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Parish Comments: No objection

Consultee Responses: English Nature No objection - reconsult if any amendment which may affect scientific interest of Moors River System SSSI

EDDC Tree Section This proposal is likely to result in the loss of two trees. However, the screen to which they contribute will be retained by the surrounding trees.

No arboricultural objections or conditions.

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

39 This application proposes an extension to the Carriage Shed at the narrow gauge railway station at Moors Valley Country Park.

The site lies within the Green Belt, where planning permission should only be granted for uses other than agriculture or forestry, outdoor sport and recreation, and cemeteries under exceptional circumstances.

The proposal is to construct a single storey extension to the western elevation of the existing station building 24.15m long, 4.65m wide and 2.6m high at its highest point. The design of the building reflects that of the main Station building. The applicants have stated that the proposed building is to accommodate their existing rolling stock, and it is understood that this proposal will not allow additional rolling stock to be added to the railway.

The existing rolling stock is kept in the main Station complex and is prone to vandalism and damage by the weather. The applicants have considered alternative ways of providing security and cover for the stock, but due to the size and layout of the existing buildings, there is no feasible alternative to an extension. They argue that the proposed extension would allow them to (1) safeguard the integrity of the railway’s rolling stock by preventing acts of vandalism, which, regrettably are occurring more frequently, and (2) in tandem with the above, to ensure all weather covered accommodation, in a controlled environment, is available for all rolling stock currently outside, thus prolonging their useable life and enhancing the passenger’s experience.

The existing station complex has a total floor space of 1302m2, and the application proposes an additional 112m2. The location and design of the extension proposed seeks to minimise its impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

The site lies adjacent to the Moors River SSSI. English Nature have raised no objection to the proposal.

The extension would result in the loss of two trees on the site, but your Tree Officer does not object to this loss as the screen to which they contribute will be retained by the surrounding trees.

As has been stated above, the site lies within the Green Belt where careful consideration should be given to the construction of new buildings. However it is considered that the applicant’s justification for the addition to the station building represents special circumstances in that the proposal is to accommodate existing rolling stock and is not to facilitate any expansion of the railway. There is an unfortunate, existing vandalism problem on the premises, exacerbated by the open nature of the station which results in no adequate secure accommodation for all the rolling stock.

For these reasons it is recommended that consent be granted for the extension, subject to the following conditions.

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

Conditions:-

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.

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

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

3 The building hereby approved shall be used only to accommodate the rolling stock of the Moors Valley Country Park Narrow Gauge Railway, and for no other purpose.

Reason The building lies within the Green Belt and has been justified as an essential facility to the existing enterprise.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/03/1704/FUL

Proposal: Erect Barn and Stables and Modify Existing Access

Site Address: Land At B3081, Sixpenny Handley, Salisbury, for Mrs Parker Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP County Distributor Road LP Site Notice expired: 7 February 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 30 January 2004

Parish Comments: The Parish Councillors support the application, but would like to mention that our recommendations on the last plan have not been taken on board. The applicant said that they would prefer to site the buildings at the bottom end of the field close to trees. We support this proposal and would like to see it re-routed at the south end of the field, where it would be less obtrusive. The parish council would not like to see this application set a precedent for ribbon development. Comments need to be reported to EDDC Planning Committee.

Consultee Responses: County Highways No objections Development Liaison Officer

EDDC Design And This proposal has been the subject of extensive

41 Conservation consultation with the applicants since the previous application was withdrawn. The current proposals reflect those discussions and have addressed previous concerns regarding: 1. the siting and design of buildings and their impact on the landscape setting. 2. The location and design of the vehicular access, which now utilises the existing field entrance to the east.

EDDC Tree Section No arboricultural objections or conditions.

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

The application proposes the erection of a barn and stables on a field to the north of Sixpenny Handley village. The proposal also includes the upgrading of the existing field access. The site lies within the countryside and within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The application follows the submission of an application in August last year (ref 3/03/1112) for the erection of stables and barn (arranged in an L shape) on the same field which was withdrawn following officer concerns regarding the scale, form and position of the buildings proposed as well as access issues raised by the Highway Authority.

The principle of small-scale buildings to support recreational use is accepted within the countryside. Policies CSIDE1 and CSIDE8 of the East Dorset Local Plan are of relevance. Additionally within the AONB any application must be assessed in terms of its landscape and visual impact. In this respect policy LSCON1 of the Local Plan states:

'Within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as shown on the Proposals Map, development which would harm the natural beauty of the landscape will not be permitted. Major industrial or commercial development will only be permitted where there is an overriding national interest and lack of alternative sites.'

The proposal indicates the erection of two detached buildings (as opposed to the earlier scheme which indicated the erection of an L shaped building.), together with the upgrading of the existing access into the field (formerly a new access was proposed). The buildings comprise a 3 horse stable building measuring 4.8m x 11.35m x 3m high and a barn 4m x 9m x 3.7m high. Both buildings are shown to be clad in weatherboard (stained dark brown), with black 'onduline' roofs.

The buildings, which are at right angles to one another, are set back from the road frontage by approximately 4.5m. Opposite is a group of farm buildings at Humby's Farm. Whilst there remain some concerns regarding the exposed and elevated position of the site, the position the proposed buildings, will be read against the existing farm complex, which will assist in limiting their impact on the wider landscape setting. The proposed location is considered to be preferred for this reason as opposed to the alternatives suggested by the Parish Council, which are not supported. Both national (Planning Policy Guidance Note 7) and local planning policy encourage that the impact of any new buildings be carefully considered, and grouped with existing buildings wherever possible. PPG7 Annex F at paragraph F2 states: 'As for all development in the countryside, applicants for planning permission to develop involving horses should take particular care to minimise the effect their proposals will have on the appearance of the

42 countryside. Buildings should be designed to blend with their surroundings.' Policy CSIDE 1 (paragraph 6.56) of the East Dorset Local Plan states: Development which would damage the rural character of the countryside will not be permitted...Where new buildings are permitted they should be located so as to form a group with existing buildings wherever possible. In cases where this is not possible, buildings, car parking areas and any other new structures should be sited where they will be well screened and unobtrusive in the landscape.' The chosen location is consistent with that advice.

The applicants have produced a statement in support of their application, which will be made available prior to the meeting. In summary the document explains the reason for the application, the design rationale behind the building form and sets out the framework for the reinforcement of existing planting.

Your Design and Conservation officer is satisfied that the scheme, as amended to incorporate buildings of a more traditional form and appearance, and that the location proposed is now acceptable and will not harm the character of the AONB. The Highway Authority does not object and request the imposition of conditions to control the upgrading of the existing access. Whilst the Parish Council comment are noted regarding the exposed site location, the scheme as amended is on balance considered to be acceptable subject to condition. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

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

Conditions:-

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 commencement of development, the first 10 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.

3 Visibility splays at the access with an 'x' dimension of 2.4 metres and a 'y' dimension of 215 metres such that a vehicular user of the access can see the entire road width for the entire distance 'y', shall be provided prior to the commencement of development and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility for road users in the interests of highway safety.

4 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until areas for the manoeuvring, parking, loading and unloading of vehicles in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority has been provided, surfaced and made ready in all respects and such areas shall subsequently be retained for these purposes and kept available at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

43 5 Before the development hereby authorised is brought into use any entrance gates shall be set back a minimum distance of 10metres from the edge of the carriageway and hung so as to open inwards.

Reason: To enable vehicles to be parked clear of the carriageway whilst any gates are being opened or closed in the interests of highway safety.

6 The proposal for the landscaping of the site, as shown on the submitted plans, including the planting of additional trees and shrubs, and the provision of walls and fences, 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. Any plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be duly replaced and the whole scheme thereafter 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.

Informatives:

1 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 works on the public highway the Area Highways Manager (East) should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification (for the type access(es)). He can be contacted at the Area Office (East), Stour Park, Blandford St Mary, Dorset, DT11 9LQ (Tel: 01258 450048).

2 The applicant and his successors are advised that the obstruction of the drive and/or turning space by the habitual parking of a second car, a boat, caravan, trailer or other obstruction will constitute an infringement of the condition relating to the construction and use of the turning space. Likewise such works as might otherwise after completion of the development be 'permitted development' shall not be so permitted if they negate or reduce the turning space or drive.

3 In the interests of highway safety, provision shall be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the highway.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/04/0021/COU

Proposal: Change of use from retail to office.

Site Address: 483 Ringwood Road, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mrs Wright

44 Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Urban Areas LP Town Centre Policy Area LP Site Notice expired: 13 February 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 10 February 2004

Parish Comments: Concern about the continuing loss of retail space in Ringwood Road which contributes to a loss of vitality for the area.

Officers Report:

This is an application for a change of use of this existing Class A1 (retail) unit to Class A2 (Financial and Professional services). No external changes are proposed.

This application comes to Committee on account of the comments of the Town Council.

483 Ringwood Road stands in a parade of units immediately north-east of the access to the Tesco car park. Within the surrounding units are a range of uses including retailing, estate agents and banks (Class A2) and restaurants and takeaways (Class A3).

In the East Dorset Local Plan the area is identified as being part of the commercial centre of Ferndown where a range of uses including Classes A1, A2, A3 & B1 are considered to be acceptable under Policy FWP5 (Paragraph 9.43). It is however outside of the primary retail frontage area identified in the Local Plan to the north of the site in Pennys Walk.

As the Local Plan specifically advises that this form of development will be acceptable in this area, the application is recommended for approval.

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

Conditions:-

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.

Policy Considerations

45 Item Number: 11. Ref: 3/04/0047/FUL

Proposal: Raise Existing Roof and Construct Pitched Roof over Existing Flat Roofed Extension With Front Dormer and Roof Lights to Provide Accommodation in Roof. Rear Extension Forming Conservatory, (as amended by plans received 19.02.2004 - replacement of dormer window to front with 2 skylights, internal alterations). Site Address: 93 Woolsbridge Road, Ashley Heath, Ringwood, for Mrs Waterman Constraints Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Site Notice expired: 15 February 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 12 March 2004

Parish Comments: Comments in relation to originally submitted plans: No objection subject to: Upper level of conservatory having obscure glass; existing height of rear hedge maintained at current height of 5m minimum, development rights removed. Comments on amended plans awaited.

Neighbour Comments: Mrs E. Godfery 24 The Glade, The amended plans would still result in overlooking to Ashley Heath properties to the rear. The walkway has been deleted but could be re-instated once the conservatory has been erected. Would create a precedent for other developments to the detriment of the area and existing residents.

Mr White 26 The Glade, Creating a 2 storey dwelling is out of character with the Ashley Heath area. Overlooking to properties to the rear. Two storey conservatory to the rear is out if character and will dominate the appearance of the dwelling and be visually intrusive. The gallery/walkway within the conservatory has been removed from this latest proposal but could be re-instated under PD rights if the conservatory was allowed to be built. Even if a condition removed PD rights for this, it would be difficult to enforce. First floor bedroom balcony will lead to overlooking to properties to the rear.

Mr Love 95 Woolsbridge Support proposal and consider it will improve the Road, Ashley Heath appearance of the property.

Mr Birch 22 The Glade, Ashley Overlooking to 22 The Glade. Area characterised by Heath bungalows, creation of a 2 storey dwelling is out of character with the area. Area already being overdeveloped. Would create a precedent for similar developments, leading to further overlooking to adjacent properties. Internal balcony to the bedroom would result in overlooking to properties to the rear. Internal gallery, as previously proposed under application 3/03/1527 could be put back into the scheme

46 once the conservatory constructed, under PD rights. Ridge height excessive and out of character.

Officers Report:

Description of Proposal

This application proposes to raise the roof of the existing bungalow to 7 metres. Two skylights are proposed to the front, four on the southern elevation, one on the northern elevation and one on the rear (western) elevation. A window is proposed at first floor level in the new gable end to the front of the property. A conservatory is proposed to the rear which will have a ridge height of 5.6m. The proposal will provide a bedroom, bathroom and “hobbies room” in the roof space, together with additional ground floor accommodation. There is also an internal balcony from the bedroom overlooking the conservatory. The balcony is to have walls on either side to prevent views to the adjacent properties. The upper panes of glass of the conservatory, above 2.7m in height, are to be obscure glazed, to reduce the direct line of sight to the rear from the balcony.

The plans have been amended to delete the dormer window to the front elevation and to make internal alterations, so that the skylights on the southern elevation do not have to be set low in the roof, to provide an emergency means of escape thereby minimising the overlooking to the neighbouring property. There will now be a connecting door between the bedroom and the hobbies room so that the means of escape will be via the front facing window in the gable.

A previous application, planning reference 03/1527/FUL was refused on 8 January 2004 under delegated powers. This was refused as it was considered that the proposed extensions would result in overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties on either side. The main differences between this latest proposal and that which was refused, are that the skylights are all set at a high level, the dormer window to the front has been removed and there is no longer an internal walkway leading out from the balcony, above the conservatory floor.

Description of Site

The site comprises the existing bungalow and a detached double garage. This is a fairly level site. There are bungalows to the north and south and also in The Glade to the rear.

Description of policy framework The site lies within the defined urban area of St. Ives. Therefore, in principle, residential extensions to this property is acceptable, subject to meeting the criteria set out in Policy DES8 (Para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Analysis of Issues

The principle issues on the site are the impact on the adjacent properties and the impact on the visual amenities of the area. Number 95 to the north is sited further forwards towards the road than number 93. This means that the front elevation of number 93 is sited behind the rear elevation of number 95. In order to avoid overlooking from the first floor of the application site, to the rear patio doors of number 91, the dormer window has now been deleted from the proposal. The skylights are set at a high level. It is considered that the proposal will no longer result in overlooking to number 95. The reduction in the bulk of the building, by the

47 deletion of the dormer window is also welcomed, as it will have less of an overbearing impact on this adjacent property.

Number 91 is off set from the boundary with number 93, by approximately 8m. In order to avoid overlooking to the south, the skylights are set 2m above floor height. The internal layout has been altered so that there is a means of escape through the hobbies room to the window in the front elevation. This therefore complies with Building Regulations. A condition is suggested to ensure that these skylights can not be placed any lower in the roof and that no other windows can be created in the north, south, east or west elevations.

Number 93 has a rear garden of approximately 34m in length. There is a distance of approximately 49m between the rear facing balcony and the rear elevations of number 24 The Glade and 38m to No 26 The Glade to the west. In addition, the plans have now been altered to make the upper panes of glass the western elevation of the conservatory, obscure glazed. A condition is suggested to ensure that these panes of glass are obscure glazed and thereafter retained as such. Given the distances involved, that the internal walkway no longer forms part of the proposed development and the upper panes of glass are to be obscure glazed, it is considered that there will be no material overlooking or loss of privacy to the properties to the rear. A condition is suggested to prevent the walkway being erected from the balcony, above the conservatory floor, under Permitted Development rights.

On this basis, it is considered that the proposal will not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties and the proposal accords with Policy DES8 (Para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Although the ridge is to be raised, it will still only be up to 7m. The bulk of the roof has been reduced by the deletion of the dormer window to the front. It is also set back from the road by over 27m. There are a mix of bungalows, chalet bungalows and 2 storey houses within Woolsbridge Road. It is considered that the alterations to make this into a chalet bungalow, will not be out of character with the area, or visually intrusive. It is considered that the proposal will not adversely affect the visual amenities of the area, and therefore complies with Policy DES8 (para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Conclusions

The revised proposals are now acceptable, subject to the conditions set out below. There will be no material harm to the amenities of nearby residents or the visual amenities of the area, which would justify the refusal of this application.

Recommendation

This application is therefore recommended for approval.

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

Conditions:-

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.

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

2 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the development, hereby permitted, shall be identical in every respect to those of the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing.

3 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the skylights in the north, south, east and west elevations shall be set a minimum of 2m above floor level as shown on the approved drawings. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment , no further fenestration or doors shall be installed in these elevations, without express planning permission first being obtained. Reason: to prevent overlooking to adjacent properties to preserve the amenities of the occupiers of these properties, in accordance with Policy DES8 (Para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

4 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the panes of glass above 2.7m in the western elevation of the conservatory shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be fixed shut or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking. Details of the obscure glass shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no walkway or bridge shall be created leading out from the internal balcony within the conservatory hereby approved. Reason: to prevent overlooking and preserve the privacy of adjacent properties, in accordance with Policy DES8 (Para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations

Item Number: 12. Ref: 3/04/0050/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Existing Bungalow and Detached Garage and Erect a Chalet Bungalow with Integral Garage (amendment to plans approval under planning permission 3/03/1175 to include a dormer window on the southern elevation and alterations to skylights) Site Address: 60 Elmhurst Road, West Moors, Ferndown, for Mr And Mrs James Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Site Notice expired: 29 February 2004 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 23 February 2004

49 Parish Comments: Objection: Dormer very close to next door which has two velux windows on their roof. Note our previous comments on 03/1175: Overdevelopment on a narrow plot - inconsistent with neighbouring properties. Officers Report: This application is brought to the Committee for determination, as the Parish have raised an objection to the application which is at odds with the officer recommendation of approval.

Description of Proposal

This application is for amendments to planning permission 3/03/1175, which was for the demolition of the existing bungalow and detached garage and the erection of a chalet bungalow with integral garage. The alterations proposed under this application are for a dormer window on the southern elevation to serve the bathroom and alterations to the internal layout, resulting in minor alterations to the position of the skylights on the northern and southern elevations. The alterations under this application, means that the dwelling will now have 4 rather than 3 bedrooms.

The original bungalow has now been demolished and the chalet bungalow approved under application 3/03/1175 is now under construction. However, it has only been erected to eaves height, pending the outcome of this application.

Description of Site

The site is relatively flat and clearly visible from the road. The adjacent property to the north, number 62, is a bungalow. The property to the south is a chalet bungalow with skylights on its northern elevation facing towards the application site and dormer windows on its southern elevation facing towards Uplands Road.

The area is characterised by a mixture of bungalows and chalet bungalows.

Description of policy framework

The site lies within the defined urban area of West Moors. The principle of a replacement dwelling on this site is acceptable subject to meeting the criteria set out in Policy DES8 (Para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan. In addition, as planning permission has already been granted under 3/03/1175 for a chalet bungalow on this site, the principle of a chalet bungalow has already been established.

Analysis of Issues

The principle issue in respect of this application, is whether the inclusion of a dormer window, in place of the approved skylight on the southern elevation and alterations to the position of the skylights on the northern elevation, will have an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties and also whether there would be any adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area.

The dormer window is to serve a bathroom. The elevation drawings show this to have a side hung window. However, a condition could be imposed to make this obscure glazed and top hung opening only. This would prevent overlooking to the skylights and ground floor windows of no. 58. Number 60 lies to the north of no. 58 and therefore there will be

50 no material loss of light from this dormer window to the windows and skylights on the northern elevation of no. 58. It is therefore considered that there will be no material loss of amenity to the occupiers of no. 58.

There are still 3 skylights shown on the northern elevation, facing towards no. 62. There are slight alterations to their positions and one of the windows is to be made high level instead of obscure glazed to reflect the changes to the internal layout now proposed. It is not considered that these alterations will materially alter the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of no. 62, compared with the approved plans.

There are a mix of bungalows and chalet bungalows within Elmhurst Road. A number of these chalet bungalows have dormer windows as well as skylights, including the adjacent property no. 58. The dormer window has a ridge which is set just below the ridge of the roof and is hipped on all sides which reflects the shape of the main roof. The visual impact of including a dormer window on the southern elevation is considered acceptable.

The new dwelling will now have 4 bedrooms, instead of 3. There is one garage space and one driveway space and roadside parking is available. It is considered that providing a condition is imposed to secure the retention of the garage for vehicle parking, there will be sufficient on-site parking for a 4 bed property.

Conclusions

It is considered that there are no material planning reasons to refuse the application and that the proposal accords with Policy DES8 (Para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Recommendation

This application is therefore recommended for approval.

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

Conditions:-

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

3 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the dormer window on the southern elevation serving the bathroom shall be glazed with obscure glass and top hung opening only, and the en-suite bathroom window on the northern elevation, shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be a fixed light of hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of the obscure glazing being

51 negated by reason of overlooking. Details of the obscure glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the installation of these windows. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment , no further fenestration of doors shall be installed in the northern and southern elevations without express planning permission. Reason: In order to preserve the privacy of the occupiers of adjacent properties and in accordance with Policy DES8 (Para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

4 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the garage shall be used solely for the accommodation of private vehicles belonging to the occupiers of the property to which it is shown to be related by the terms of the application and the deposited plans. At no time shall the garage be used for industrial, trade, or business activity of any description whatsoever. Further, and notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the garage shall be retained for this purpose and shall not be converted to any other domestic accommodation without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: The building is inappropriate for use other than as a private garage by reason of its relationship to the parent premises, the neighbourhood in which it is situated and the need to retain parking provision in accordance with the Council policy.

5 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, proposals for the hard landscaping shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved works shall be completed in all respects before the final completion of the development and thereafter retained.

Reason: To enhance the amenities of the site and to secure well planned development.

6 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.

7 Prior to the commencement of development, the first 4.5m 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.

52 8 Upon construction of the new access all other existing accesses to the site shall be permanently stopped up and abandoned.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access 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.

10 Any entrance gates shall be hung so as to open inwards into the site.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Informatives:

2 In the interests of highway safety, provision shall be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the highway.

Policy Considerations