Schedule of Planning Applications

Everyone 7 128 1902 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 1 0 57 rep_exe_IDsNo 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 No No No No No No No No No No No NoENV1 19/05/2009 09:30:07 Chief Executive Old 52 1

East Dorset District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Item No 6 19th May, 2009 Public Report

Schedule of Planning Applications

Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Contributors Chief Executive Contact Officer Michael Hirsh, Head of Planning & Building Control Financial Implications: None. Council Priorities: ENV1 Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Head of Planning and Building Control's recommendation.

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

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

3. Equalities Implications 3.1 There are no known reasons to believe that the services provided are discriminatory against people because of their race, disability, belief or religion, age, gender or sexuality.

4. Risk Implications 4.1 There are no implications associated with this report.

5. Application Schedule 5.1 No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/09/0024/FUL 28 West Moors Road, Ferndown, Dorset 2 2. 3/09/0108/FUL Plowmans Garden Nursery And Plant Centre Ltd, 392 4 Christchurch Road, West Parley 3. 3/09/0193/COU Three Legged Cross Veterinary Surgery, Welwyndale, 10 Verwood Road 4. 3/09/0264/FUL 7A Firside Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 13 5. 3/09/0273/FUL Land To The West Of, Station Road, West Moors 15

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/09/0024/FUL

Proposal: Rear and Side Extensions. Convert Extended Roofspace to Living Accommodation- As amended by plan received 22 April 2009

Site Address: 28 West Moors Road, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mr And Mrs G Linton

Constraints Urban Area Windfarm BIA 45m Birdstrike

Site Notice expired: 8 March 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 March 2009

Ferndown Town Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application is brought to Committee for determination as the applicant is an agency employee currently working for the Council.

Site description This site is within the defined urban area of Ferndown and Policy DES8 of the EDLP applies to the consideration of this proposal.

The existing dwelling is a detached two bedroom bungalow with a single garage which has had a conservatory extension at the rear. It is set in an area of similar bungalows, set in relatively spacious plots, and some of these have been extended to provide accommodation within the roof space. A footpath runs along the northern boundary of the site linking West Moors Road with Martins Drive to the east.

Proposal This application is for a single storey rear extension to provide a dining room, 3.3m deep x 7.3m wide. The roof is to be extended out above this rear extension and the roof space converted to provide two bedrooms and an en-suite bathroom. The position of the skylights has been altered as a result of negotiation during the course of this application, in order to limit the impact on the adjacent dwellings. Glass in the gable ends to the front and rear provides light into the two bedrooms but these are fixed shut. Two lower level skylights are required for each bedroom to provide a means of escape. There are also two further high level skylights in the side facing slopes of the roof to provide light to the bathroom, stairwell and further light to the bedrooms.

A single storey side extension, 2.8m x 4.4m adjacent to the boundary with no. 26 is also proposed to provide a study off the living room.

Main Issues The main issues in the consideration of this application are its visual impact and impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings.

Visual Impact

2 The ridge at the front of the dwelling will not be altered as a result of this proposal and therefore the only visual alteration from the front will be the new glazing at the front of the gable end and the skylights in the roof. The extension at the rear is sited centrally to the plot and although it will be partially visible from the road it will be largely screened by the existing dwelling and will also have no detrimental impact. The extended roof of the rear extension will be partially visible when viewed from the footpath which runs alongside the northern boundary of the site. However, there is a 2m+ high close boarded fence along this boundary which will limit its visual impact and as the ridge height is to be extended out to the rear at the same level as the existing main ridge of 5.3m, its visual impact will be very limited and will have no materially detrimental impact. The small single storey side extension, which will fill the space between the no 28 and the garage of no. 26, will also have no adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area. It is considered that these alterations are in keeping with the character of the area and will not be visually intrusive. The application therefore accords with Policy DES8 of the EDLP in this regard.

Impact on adjacent dwellings The rear extension is central to the plot and over 5m from the boundaries of the site. With a ridge height over the extension of only 5.3m, which is the same as the existing ridge height, it is considered that the proposal will not have an overbearing effect or result in loss of light to neighbouring dwellings. The escape skylight towards the rear of the roof on the southern side has been relocated to the centre of the roof on the northern side, which will avoid overlooking to the rear of no. 26. The escape window skylight further towards the front of the roof on the northern side will overlook the garage of no. 30 and on the southern side will overlook the garage of no. 26. The other skylights are set at a higher level in the roof and will not afford any overlooking to neighbouring properties. The single storey side extension will be only 0.3m away from the boundary with no. 26. However, as the garage to this property runs along this boundary this extension will have no adverse impact on no. 26.

Conclusion The proposal accords with Policy DES8 of the EDLP and the application is recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, no further windows shall be installed on the north and south elevations, other than the skylights shown on the plans hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings in accordance with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

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: DES8

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/09/0108/FUL

Proposal: Retrospective planning application for the erection of two structures (railway station and store) and the laying of miniature railway track

Site Address: Plowmans Garden Nursery And Plant Centre Ltd, 392 Christchurch Road, West Parley, for Mr V Plowman

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (All) Green Belt LP

Site Notice expired: 10 April 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 8 April 2009

West Parley Parish Council We object on basis that miniature railway is not an intrinsic Comments: part of a retail garden centre. In addition to this being inappropriate and unnecessary development, the proposed 'botanical garden' would appear also to be in conflict with policies of local plan and PPS in relation to Green Belt. We feel this is yet another step towards converting this horticultural site into a theme park, which contravenes the owners stated aims.

Consultee Responses: Safeguarding Officer

County Highways Development No objection. Liaison Officer

EDDC Public Health - Housing No comments. And Pollution

Neighbour Comments:

J Knight by e-mail In support

Mr N Cowdrey 3 Black Bush In support Cottages, Castle Hill Lane

R F & J L Crouden 5 In support Springfield Close, Dobwalls

M A Aragon'es 38 Slades Hill In support Farm, Ensbury Park

C J Durham by e-mail In support

Anthony & Gillian Leedham by In support e-mail

Mr J Dawson by e-mail In support

Mrs A Lewis 56 Holloway In support Avenue, Bear Cross

Brian Ross In support

Anne Bartlett 7 Wren Crescent, In support Branksome

Michael Stevenson Fairleigh, In support Burgate Cross

Mrs C Dowe by e-mail In support

G G Milne 29 Lone Pine Drive, In support Ferndown

Bryn Elian 50 Hazelwood In support Avenue, New Milton

Mr & Mrs Michael Ware by e- My wife and I both feel that the planning consent should be mail, given to the Railroad for several reasons. 1) This collection of locomotives is unique and the largest of these, the "Big Boy", is the only one of its type in the world and we have the honour of having it here in Dorset. 2) Because of 1 above, this will bring enthusiasts from around the country and this will no doubt bring in extra revenue to the local area. 3) Because these Loco's are all American outline, this Railroad will be themed accordingly and therefore will add to the local attractions and not clash with them. 4) Plowmans has, I believe, donated money to childrens charities in the past from the Santa specials, if this planning consent is not passed then it would in these somewhat straightened times be taking away a much needed source of income which in due course would fall back onto the local council.

P N Kelly 33 Holdenhurst In support Avenue, Bournemouth

Mr C G Loader 200 Leybourne In support Avenue, Bournemouth

R T Pitcher Pitchers Farm, In support Farley

Ginnie Ware By E-mail, In support [email protected]

K & P Dyer 63 Merley Ways, In support Wimborne

Mr & Mrs McCheyne 42 Willow In support Way, Christchurch

C & D Moore 6 Pound Lane, In support Poole

N P Dampney 390 Object Christchurch Road, West Proposal is not conductive to the trading or business of a Parley Nursery & Plant Centre and that the words "miniature railway track" do not convey the true size of application Railway will be in form of a visitor attraction and entertainment Green Belt concerns

R C Hill 20 Durlston Crescent, In Support St Catherine's Hill

Mr F A White "Freshfields", Top In support Floor Flat - Side Door

J Parfitt 18 Erpingham Road, In support Branksome

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda because the numbers of letters in support of the application exceeds five and the recommendation is to refuse permission.

Plowman's Garden Nursery and Plant Centre is situated on the south side of Christchurch Road between West Parley and the airport and is within a semi rural area designated Green Belt. The site covers an area of approximately 3.8ha and has a variety of buildings which are largely typical of a garden centre type operation.

The site has an extensive planning history and has been the subject of several planning and enforcement appeals over the past decade relating to the erection of buildings and activities undertaken. It was accepted during the course of a 2005 appeal that the lawful use of the holding "is a mixed use combining horticultural use and the retail sale of imported plants and associated sundries including seeds, bulbs, pots, planters, baskets, troughs, compost, fertiliser and small tools." However, the Inspector went on to confirm that "A retail sales use is not one of those deemed appropriate within the Green Belt", and it follows that the mixed use now lawful on this holding, is not appropriate within the Green Belt.

The Proposal

6 The current activities and buildings on the holding have been augmented recently by a miniature railway and additional wooden buildings in the form of a covered station building (measuring 31.5m long x 7.0m wide with a height of 2.3m) and a covered store (measuring 21.5m long, 4.5m wide with a height of 3.0m). The railway track runs in a loop, approximately 480 metres long, to the south of the main complex of buildings around a currently featureless grassed piece of land. It is envisaged that the trains will run on weekends and Bank Holidays from 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. This retrospective application is to retain this unauthorised development which has been undertaken on this site.

Members should also be aware that at the time of your officer's site visit it was apparent that a further storage building (covering an area in excess of 215 sq.m) had been erected to the west of the covered station. The railway storage at present extends into this building, but does not form part of this current application. The applicant has been asked to provide an explanation for this building and any special reasons why the Council should consider its retention in the Green Belt.

In support of the planning application, the applicant claims that the proposal complies with all relevant planning policies including those relating to green belts, countryside, employment and tourism. He considers that the use of the railway is ancillary to the main use of the site as a nursery and garden centre and it does not harm or damage the visual amenities of the countryside as it has been erected between existing buildings and cannot be seen from Christchurch Road. It is also claimed that the use and erection of the station and miniature railway are not inappropriate development in the Green Belt as they leave the openness unharmed.

The applicant has stated in supporting documentation that the proposal will provide an additional feature for visitors to the site and be an attraction for children and parents/grandparents alike and help to "increase the vitality and viability of Plowmans Garden Centre." It is part of a comprehensive package of improvements and specific features and designs for gardens will be created along the path of the railway, which will "…help visitors imagine and place certain features and plants in their gardens that are sold by Plowmans Garden Centre."

The applicant states that "It is not seen as a visitor attraction in its own right, though undoubtedly it will attract visitors to the garden centre."

Considerations

In considering an earlier appeal on the site an Inspector took the view that the mixed use, now lawful on the site is not appropriate within the Green Belt. It follows therefore that any additional facility to support the mixed use would not be appropriate development either.

Is the railway ancillary?

As Members may be aware, primary uses of land may embrace one or more ancillary activities, being closely linked and subservient to it. For example, office and storage uses may be ancillary to a shop use. Whilst in 2005 an Inspector found the use of an existing polytunnel on this site as a Tea Room ancillary to the lawful use (given its scale at the time), it is difficult to reconcile the functional link between the miniature railway (and associated structures) and the established horticultural use/sale of imported goods.

The railway currently has no close links to the permitted use other than the applicant's desire to have one. A charge will be made for a ride. Whether customers use the facility whilst shopping/choosing plants or visit the railway as an attraction is debatable. Certainly the

7 many representations received in support of the application and some of the publicity material to date seem to indicate the proposal is the primary attraction. In relation to impact, the attraction is likely to result in increased visits to the site, on more occasions that just to choose plants. The impact of the new buildings (and potentially the train storage facility not forming part of this application) is certainly significant and therefore, in your officers' view, should be viewed as a primary use.

Inappropriate development

Whilst the track itself may not have any adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, the associated station building (and any related storage) must inevitably be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt and, thus, constitute inappropriate development. The Government's Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) 'Green Belts' makes it absolutely clear that inappropriate development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. This development does not fall within any of the categories of development which are set out in PPG2. As inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt PPG2 states quite unequivocally that "It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted."

The justification put forward by the applicant consists mainly of the following arguments: a) There is no harm to the openness of the Green Belt because it can not be seen from Christchurch Road; b) It will provide employment, bring trade to the area and strengthen the economy; c) It will increase visitor numbers to the garden centre, notwithstanding the assertion that "The miniature railway is not an attraction in its own right." d) The character and appearance of the Green Belt will be enhanced as a result of the planting of a botanical garden through which the railway will pass.

Members will know that the degree of visibility of developments in the Green Belt is not the correct test of detriment to openness and none of the other matters come close to satisfying the test of 'very special circumstances'.

Members should be aware of a relevant appeal decision on this issue involving development of a canopy over a display area at Stewarts Garden Centre and Nursery at Broomhill (3/06/1502) received in February this year. This followed a successful challenge by the Council to an earlier decision by a previous Inspector to allow that appeal. The circumstances in terms of impact on the openness of the Green Belt are pertinent to this case. The Inspector said:

"From a Green Belt point of view I accept that set against the scale of the building to which the new canopy would be attached and its inconspicuous siting, the additional covering would be quite discrete. Nevertheless there are no arguments in PPG2 to suggest that smallness need not necessarily impact on openness..."

The applicant's argument that as the train station and lean-to building cannot be seen from Christchurch Road it does not cause harm to the Green Belt, is not accepted, and is unacceptable set against this decision.

There is also reference to other garden centres with miniature railways elsewhere in the country and the railway at Moors Valley Country Park. Clearly, the local planning authority

8 has no knowledge of the garden centres which are mentioned and the information furnished by the applicant is inadequate to come to a view about materiality. However, Moors Valley is an entirely different undertaking and readily differentiated. It is an extensive Country Park which has a wide range of facilities. The main engine shed associated with the railway at Moors Valley derived from an existing building which has been modified to its current use. There is no comparison between the scale of Moors Valley Country Park and the application site. Moors Valley Country Park covers an extensive recreational area in excess of 500 ha whilst Plowmans Garden Nursery is more intensive commercial development covering 3.8 ha.

Storage Building

A further part of this proposal relates to the erection of a lean-to storage building across the end of the existing polytunnels. No mention of the intended use is given in the application (i.e. whether railway or nursery orientated) but is currently being used to provide mixed general storage, with some train apparatus.

Members should be aware that planning permission already exists for a storage barn (allowed on appeal in 2005) which was to be sited a few metres east of the lean-to building recently constructed. That barn had a length of 30.45m, a width of 13m and overall height of 6.2m. At the time of that appeal, the Inspector concluded that a storage building to support the existing 'mixed use' of the holding, was inappropriate within the Green Belt. However, he then went on to consider whether there were any 'very special circumstances' sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

Having considered issues in relation to size, height and proposed use of the barn, he attached considerable weight to the offer of a condition by the applicant barring open storage from certain areas of the holding which was unrestricted at that time. The Inspector considered that the "…clearance of these areas and the establishment of readily policed lines beyond which any stored items would be self evidently a breach of condition would improve the openness of the Green Belt, and incidentally also reduce the present harm to the rural character of the land so used." In allowing that appeal he imposed a condition requiring (on substantial completion of the barn) the removal of outside storage and containers/structures beyond the immediate confines of the building complex together with additional landscaping.

That permission remains extant but not implemented. As such the required condition is not in force or the benefits (or very special circumstances) realised to support this new proposal. Furthermore, part of the applicant's justification for the earlier approved building was that a building of that size (and height) was needed to facilitate bulk storage and fork lift truck handling. This is not a feature of the current lean-to structure which would do little to bring about the benefits envisaged by the Inspector. There is therefore no justification to allow a further storage building on the site or offset this permission against a lesser building, which represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

In summary, therefore, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the lack of any 'special circumstances' must inevitably result in a recommendation that planning permission be refused.

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

Reasons:-

9 1 The erection of the covered station building associated with the proposed miniature railway around this holding is not considered to be ancillary or essential to supporting the existing mixed use of the site relating to horticulture and retail sales. The proposal represents inappropriate development which is detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. The application conflicts with the guidance provided by the Government in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 ‘Green Belts’.

2 The existing mixed use of the holding combining horticultural use and retail sales is not a use that is appropriate within the Green Belt. A storage building to support such a mixed use would be inappropriate development. There is already an extant planning permission for a storage building on this site allowed at appeal (ref APP/U1240/A/04/1163110 dated 25 Nov 2005). This building was permitted on the basis that the benefits to the Green Belt brought about by its implementation would, in the Inspectors view, have amounted to the ‘very special circumstances’ necessary to allow this otherwise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In this instance there are no ‘very special circumstances’ or significant benefits in allowing this further storage building on site which would outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the advice provided by the Government in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2’Green Belts’

Informatives:

1 In determining this application the local planning authority has taken into account the advice set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 "Green Belts".

2 The justification for granting planning permission which has been put forward has been careful consideration by the local planning authority but it does not overcome the need to safeguard the openness of the Green Belt.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/09/0193/COU

Proposal: Change of Use of Existing Steel Framed Building to Part of Veterinary Surgery (By Erecting a Freestanding Hydrotherapy Pool Structure within the Steel Framed Building)

Site Address: Three Legged Cross Veterinary Surgery, Welwyndale, Verwood Road, for Mr V Stoman

Constraints Article 4 Directions Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) County Distributor Road LP Green Belt LP New Road Construction/Improvement LP Cycleway/Trailway/Footpath LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 11 April 2009 Advert expired:

10 Nbr-Nfn expired: 7 April 2009

Verwood Town Council Objection Comments: Green belt policy applies. Non compliance with planning consent 07/1053 with respect to the demolition of existing buildings.

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

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application is brought to Committee for determination as the recommendation of approval is contrary to the Parish Council recommendation of refusal.

Site description and Planning History

This site is within the Green Belt and countryside, set between the defined urban area of Three Legged Cross and West Moors. There were a number of outbuildings on the site which were formerly used as engineering workshops. Planning permission was granted under ref: 3/07/1053/FUL for the Change of Use of Part of the dwelling to create a veterinary surgery, together with the erection of a rear extension, following the demolition of part of the existing building. This was granted subject to a number of conditions, including the demolition of most of the existing out-buildings and the removal of the resulting material from the site, in order to improve its appearance in this sensitive Green Belt location. There were also conditions requiring the enclosure of the garden area for the dwelling, so as to define the residential curtilage of the bungalow, the restoration of the paddock area, the creation of the parking, access and turning spaces and a restriction on the use of the dwelling only in connection with the veterinary surgery, ensuring that it could not be sold off as a separate unit of accommodation.

Current Proposal

Whilst the majority of the outbuildings on the site were required to be demolished there was one steel framed agricultural barn which did not have to be removed. The Parish Council appear to be of the view that all of the original outbuildings on the site were required to be removed and believe therefore the retention of any of the buildings would be contrary to planning consent 3/07/1053/FUL. However, this is not the case and this latest proposal is to change the use of this remaining barn for use in connection with the veterinary surgery, by erecting a freestanding hydrotherapy pool within it. The application was originally submitted to include an alteration to the residential curtilage of the dwelling to return part of it to paddock area and then use part of the existing paddock for additional car parking. Given the concerns raised by officers about the impact on the Green belt of this additional parking, this part of the proposal has now been deleted. However, at the time of your officer's site visit, the car park had already been extended with a gravel surface into the paddock.

Main Issue

The main issue in the consideration of this proposal is the impact on the Green Belt and the countryside.

The proposal will extend the veterinary use further back into the site, by use of the barn. There was a positive gain in granting the original permission, which would result in the removal of a number of industrial and storage buildings from the site and its restoration to open paddock. PPG2 : Green Belts, specifies the fundamental aims of Green Belts, which are to inter alia: check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Para. 1.6 of PPG2 goes on to explain that identifying land as Green Belt has a positive role to play in providing, inter alia: opportunities for access to open countryside for the urban population, retaining attractive landscapes and enhancing landscapes near to where people live and to improving damaged and derelict land around towns. Para. 1.7 of PPG2 also states that:

'the extent to which the use of the land fulfils these objectives is however not itself a material factor in the inclusion of land within a Green Belt, or in its continued protection. For example, although Green Belts often contain areas of attractive landscape, the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a Green Belt or to its continued protection. The purposes of including land in Green belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection, and should take precedence over the land use objectives'.

Para. 3.7 on the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt is not inappropriate development providing, inter alia:

'(a) it does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it; (b) strict control is exercised over the extension of re-used buildings, and over any associated uses of land surrounding the building which might conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it (e.g. because they involve extensive external storage, or extensive hardstanding, car parking, boundary walling or fencing); (c) the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction'.

Using the existing steel frame agricultural barn to house the hydrotherapy pool would not, in itself, be detrimental to the open and rural character of the area. However, there may be the potential for such a use to lead to further related storage in connection with the veterinary use. It is therefore suggested that a restrictive condition is imposed to prevent this. A further condition should require that the unauthorised car park extension should be removed and the paddock restored, as required on the original consent. On this basis it is considered that there would be no material harm to the Green Belt and the countryside and the proposal complies with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Policies CSIDE2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Conclusion

The use of the existing barn to house a freestanding hydrotherapy pool, in connection with the existing veterinary use is, subject to the imposition of the above mentioned conditions, considered to be acceptable. The application is recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

12 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The barn shall be used to accommodate the hydrotherapy pool only and for no other purpose other than storage uses ancillary to the maintenance and use of the adjacent paddock.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the uses of the site in the interests of the open and rural character of the Green Belt and countryside in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Policy CSIDE1 and CSIDE2 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

3 Prior to the hydrotherapy pool being brought onto the site, the unauthorised gravel car park extension (hatched green on the submitted plan) shall be taken up and material removed from the site. The area shall then be graded with top soil and seeded with meadow grass.

Reason: In order to restore the site to its approved state (as required by Condition 3 of consent no. 3/07/1053) and in the interests of the need to preserve the openness of the Green Belt as advised in PPG2 'Green Belts'.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/09/0264/FUL

Proposal: First Floor Extension to Provide Bedroom and En-Suite above Existing Double Garage.

Site Address: 7A Firside Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs Young

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Groundwater Protection Zone Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 30 April 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 28 April 2009

Corfe Mullen Parish Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs Cranstone 7 Firside Object Road, Corfe Mullen Proposal will cause: Overlooking of neighbouring properties Overdevelopment Loss of light to our property Affect visual amenities Contravenes restrictive covenant

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the applicant is a member of staff at East Dorset District Council.

The proposal is for a first floor extension above the existing double garage on the side (west) elevation of this detached dormer bungalow. It is to be built on the existing walls of the garage and will have the same ridge height as the existing dwelling.

There will be a single window in the front (south) elevation, two roof lights in the rear (north) elevation and a single high level window (sill height at least 1700mm above floor level) in the side elevation.

The scale and design of the proposal are considered acceptable and it will sit comfortably with the design of the existing property. External materials are to match the existing walls and roof (brick walls and tiled roof).

There is an obscure glazed window and door in the ground floor of the elevation of No.7 that faces the proposed extension. The door faces the side of the garage to No.7. A single roof light is also in this elevation.

The proposed extension will have some impact on the occupants of the neighbouring property at 7 Firside Road, and two issues are to be considered;

Impact on outlook from 7 Firside Road, and loss of light

There is a driveway between the application site and the dwelling at No.7 that provides an acceptable degree of separation. Additionally, the ground floor window in No.7 is frosted and has a restricted outlook, as it faces the blank side elevation of the garage to the application property.

The roof light will look out onto the gable wall of the extension, but the separation distance between it and the gable wall, coupled with the relatively narrow span of the gable should not result in a significant impact on outlook from this roof light.

Some overshadowing of the ground floor window and door in No.7 is likely from the proposal, but this is not considered likely to be so significant as to prevent planning permission being granted.

Therefore no significant impact on outlook from No.7 is foreseen.

Impact from overlooking

The two roof lights in the rear elevation are not considered likely to result in significant overlooking of the rear garden of No.7 as they will direct any overlooking towards the rear of

14 the garden which is considered acceptable in this suburban situation. Additionally the roof light nearest the boundary with No.7 is to serve an en-suite bathroom which, not being a principal room, is unlikely to generate substantial levels of overlooking.

The first floor window in the side elevation is to serve a bedroom, but will be high level, therefore not allowing overlooking during the day to day use of the room.

The occupants of 7 Firside Road have raised issues of covenants in their objections. However Members are advised that covenants cannot be considered in the planning judgement as they are not planning considerations.

In conclusion, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the street scene or the amenities of the occupants of the adjacent property at 7 Firside Road, and is considered to be compliant with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 accordingly.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The materials and finishes to be used for the external faces of the extension hereby permitted shall match 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.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/09/0273/FUL

Proposal: Installation of 24m Telecommunications Mast to include 3 Antennae and 2 Transmission Dishes and Ground Based Equipment Compound

Site Address: Land To The West Of, Station Road, West Moors, for Vodafone

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Green Belt LP Site of Nature Conservation Importance L Windfarm Consultation Zone

15 Site Notice expired: 15 May 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 8 May 2009

West Moors Parish Council Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No Objection, Subject to conditions Liaison Officer

National Grid Company

Neighbour Comments:

Mrs M B Barnes 43 Spinners Object Close, West Moors Green Belt Environmental concerns

Mrs Y Churchill 7 Pennington Object Close, West Moors Mast will be an eyesore Health implications

H G Alexander 40 Queens Object Close, West Moors Residential area Flooding concerns Green Belt Mast should be sited alongside the A31 Environmental impact on area Health concerns

Mr & Mrs A C Schofield 1 Object Queens Close, West Moors Green Belt area Unsightly eyesore Health concerns

Mrs & Mr G Pratt 65 Queens Object Close, West Moors Unsightly and spoil visual impact in village Health concerns

Mr K Newman 115 Station Object Road, West Moors Visual impact on village Health implications Property market values

Mr C J Wilson 33 Woolslope Object Road, West Moors Eyesore for the entrance to the village Health implications

D R & C R Jenkins by e-mail Object Too close to properties Damage to wild life and environment and health concerns

16 Property concerns

Pauline Hember 23 Spinners Object Close, West Moors Potential health risks Loss of view Interference with electrical/computer appliances Impact on property

June & Bill Adams 1 Spinners Object Close, West Moors Existing hazards in village; the army camp and pipelines Mast not needed and is for profit only

The Owner/Occupier 19 Object Spinners Close, West Moors Field is not 400 yards from bungalows in Spinners Close Out of keeping and will spoil the river walk

H L Bentley 17 Moorside Road, Object West Moors Health Risks Gas station and oil pipes running through field. Out of keeping and eyesore. No problems with reception so why is it necessary?

Valerie & Michael Holloway Object Woodpecker Lodge, 6a Risks to health of residents Pinehurst Road Potential safety hazard as close to gas pumping station Close to Nature Reserve

Miss J Norris 99 Station Road, Object West Moors Health implications Concern for mast to be close to gas pumping station

Mr D McIlroy 51 Spinners Object Close, West Moors Health concerns Out of keeping with area Affect house prices Environmental concerns

Mr & Mrs M Wilcox 25 Queens Object Close, West Moors Out of keeping with area Green Belt Health concerns

K Paine 23 Queens Close, Object West Moors Green Belt Tree concerns Visual impact of mast

Mr & Mrs D Blissett 19 Queens Object Close, West Moors Out of keeping with area Health concerns

Mr & Mrs Steedman Object 16,Canterbury Close, West

17 Moors

Mr D.W.R.Evans 37 Queens Object Close, West Moors

The Reverend Canon Patrick Object Chrystal The Presbytery, 8 Health concerns Pinehurst Road Unacceptable to residents of West Moors Dangerous being so close to a gas pumping station

Marjorie Grant 6 Spinners Object Close, West Moors Health risks Oil pipe line and gas pumping station in the field where the proposed mast is to be erected Out of keeping with area Further letter rec'd 6.6.09 Environmental concerns

Mrs B Hooker 7 Pinehurst Object Road, West Moors Health concerns

F Grant 39 Queens Close, Object West Moors Out of keeping with character of area, surrounding green expanse and oak trees Health concerns Affect property prices

Mr S Lewis 29 Spinners Close, Object West Moors Green Belt

G Phillips 27 Spinners Close, Object West Moors Mast will be overbearing and dominate the skyline Health concerns Out of keeping with area

Mr E Fowler 31 Spinners Object Close, West Moors Too close to residential property Danger to residents' health Why is any eyesore erected at the south of West Moors village?

Rod Gilbert 41 Queens Close, Object West Moors Health implications Other possible sites for this installation - away from housing

Mr D Evans 37 Queens Close, Object West Moors Detriment to residents’ amenity.

L M Woodhouse 53 Queens Object Close, West Moors Danger to health Affect value of property

18 Close proximity to homes Green Belt

Mr P Browning 55 Queens Object Close, West Moors Health Devalue property Ruin visual impact of West Moors

M L Wood 51 Queens Close, Object West Moors Danger to health Affect value of property Close to properties Green Belt

Mrs A Gilbert 41 Queens Object Close, West Moors Visual impact Close to properties Risk to health

C Smith 8 Queens Close, West Object Moors Visual impact Health implications

Mr & Mrs Finney 7 Queens Object Close, West Moors Visual impact Health implications

Mr N Fitch 38 Moorlands Road, Object West Moors Health and aesthetic reasons

Mr & Mrs Higgins 26 Object Mannington Way, West Moors

Mrs J McIlroy 51 Spinners Object Close, West Moors Risk of radiation Influence house prices Eyesore

Mr & Mrs Rayner 12 Queens Object Close, West Moors Unsightly Health hazard

Mr & Mrs Clarke 9 Pennington Object Close, West Moors Threat to health Affect house prices Green Belt

Mr & Mrs Ellingham 55b Object Queens Close, West Moors Affect visual impact Detrimental to health Green Belt

Mr & Mrs Thompson 50 Object Queens Close, West Moors Green Belt

19 Visual aspects Health implications Devalue property

Mr & Mrs O'Driscoll Ormiston, Object Moorside Road Out of keeping Threat to health

Mr E Thomas 41 Spinners Object Close, West Moors Health hazard Totally out of keeping with area

Clyde By E-mail Object Health reasons

Mr S G Dixon 6 Kings Close, Object West Moors Health risks Green Belt Other locations more suitable - dangerous to humans Out of keeping Further letter rec'd 5.5.09 Health concerns Out of character with the approach to West Moors Green belt

Graham Prall 11 Pinehurst Object Road, West Moors Spoil the outlook and nature of area Potential fire risk Safety concerns

T Meadows Pennington Close, Object West Moors Not suitable sited close to homes Danger to health

Officers Report:

This full planning application comes to committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval, and there have been in excess of 5 letters of objection (over 30 at the time of writing this report).

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a 24m tall triangular lattice telecommunications mast with ground based equipment compound. Three antennas and two transmission dishes will be installed on top of the mast, and an equipment cabinet will be sited in the compound.

The overall height of the mast (to include the antennae) will be 26.5m above ground level, which will allow it to rise above the canopies of the trees within the woodland immediately to the north of the application site.

Landscaping is proposed on three sides of the equipment compound, and the existing woodland will be behind it. This woodland is protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

20 Site description

The application site lies on the edge of West Moors, and is located on the edge of a field adjacent to an area of hard standing, which in turn is adjacent to a gas governor and pressure reduction station. Vehicular access is via the existing surfaced track that joins Station Road to the south.

There is an existing area of hard standing immediately to the south of the application site, and it appears this has been here since 2005 according to aerial photographs. It is proposed to use a small part of this hard standing to park a maintenance engineer’s vehicle for the proposed installation.

A timber building that appears to be a redundant stable block exists to the south of the gas governor and pressure reduction station.

There are trees along Station Road to the south of the application site, in addition to hedging and vegetation.

Requirement for the site

Vodafone requires the proposed site to provide, and increase the Third Generation (3G) network capacity to the western area of West Moors. The current Vodafone base stations within the Ferndown area cannot provide sufficient 3G coverage to the area, and a new base station is therefore required.

The new base station will satisfy a variety of users within the coverage area to include commercial, leisure; residential and vehicle users.

In addition to voice services, 3G technology will enable local residents, businesses, and individuals passing through the area to utilise high resolution video, multi-media and internet based applications. This is possible through higher rates of data transfer that will be faster than current technology allows, and will allow wireless broadband access to the internet.

The coverage plots that accompany the application show that the existing 3G coverage for Vodafone is mainly restricted to the area to the south of the A31 where West Moors Road crosses it.

The proposed mast will provide 3G coverage extending to the West Moors plantation to the north east; beyond Gulliver’s Farm to the north; to the edge of Ferndown Forest to the west, and to the edge of Hurn Forest to the south east.

Members will recall two applications for telecommunications installations at the lay by next to Monks Close, and at the A348 Ringwood Road/Wimborne Road, Tricketts Cross, which were approved at the last committee.

These applications were also on behalf of Vodafone and were to provide and enhance 3G coverage. The coverage plots provided show some overlap of coverage between these sites and the site now proposed, however the coverage is enhanced in certain areas with the proposal.

Site constraints and planning policy

The site lies in the green belt and within a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). It also lies outside the urban area.

Policies NCON3 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, and the advice set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts (1995) and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications (2001) are relevant to the proposal.

Main considerations

The main considerations are considered to be its impact on the green belt, landscape, protected trees and SNCI.

1) Impact on the green belt

Telecommunications development represents inappropriate development in the green belt, unless it maintains openness. To be acceptable, very special circumstances need to be demonstrated to outweigh the harm to the green belt.

It is considered that the proposal will have an impact on openness and is therefore inappropriate in the context of PPG2.

However, PPG2 states that the lack of a suitable alternative site that would meet the needs of network coverage or capacity might be considered as very special circumstances, and this has been accepted by Appeal Inspectors in telecommunications appeals in the district.

The applicant has set out alternative sites that have been considered, but discounted. These are as below;

• Electricity pylons, St Leonards Farm/West Moors Plantation – Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) do not allow telecoms development on their pylons in this area, and the pylons are too far from the target coverage area. • Uddens Water, Station Road, Ferndown – This is a floodplain and SNCI, and is not as visually suitable as the proposal. • Shops at Station Road, West Moors – Likely to have an adverse impact on the street scene as ‘street works’ design would be bulkier than the existing slim and intricate street columns in the area. • Station Road/Queens Close, West Moors – ‘Street works’ design likely to have adverse visual impact and close to dwellings. • West Moors Memorial Social Club, Station Road, West Moors – Site close to a primary school whilst site also in green belt. • Park Way, off Station Road, West Moors (east of Station Road shops) – ‘Street works’ design with height greater than that of adjacent buildings. Proximity of residential property renders site unsuitable. • West Moors Plantation, Glenwood Road, Ferndown – An application for a 24m tall monopole mast was dismissed at appeal in 2001. The Inspector considered that the established need for the installation; the fact that no alterative sites that were more acceptable were shown to be available, and there was no reasonable possibility of sharing facilities may provide the very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the green belt. This judgement was made subject to there being no other harm arising from the proposal. The Inspector was concerned that if existing trees surrounding the site were felled, the visual impact would be unacceptable, together with the lack of space within the application site to plant meaningful landscaping to screen the compound. • Catholic Church of St Anthony of Pavda, Pinehurst Road, West Moors – Church is not suitable for a roof top installation, and site would be in the car park. Site is close to a school and dwellings and visual screening is poor.

22 The applicant was also asked whether sites at Dorset Police, Eastern Division HQ, Police Operations Centre, Ameysford Road, Ferndown to the west of the proposed site, and West Moors fuel depot to the north east of the site could accommodate the proposal. However, both these sites are significantly withdrawn from the target cell area and will not fulfil the coverage requirement for the eastern part of West Moors that Vodafone requires.

Therefore it is accepted that the applicant has demonstrated that there is no suitable alternative site outside the green belt that would meet the needs of network coverage or capacity, and this is considered to represent very special circumstances that outweigh the harm to the openness of the green belt.

The proposal is therefore considered to respect the advice set out in PPG2 and is acceptable in respect of its impact on the green belt.

2) Impact on the landscape and views from residential properties in Queens Close, Kings Close and Spinners Close

The proposal will be viewed against a backdrop of mature deciduous trees, and views of the lattice tower and antennae will be possible from Station Road from the south and east. The mast may be glimpsed from properties and the road and footways in Queens Close and Kings Close to the north, and Spinners Close to the east. However, given the distance between the proposed site and these areas, the impact on the outlook from these properties and public spaces is limited, and not considered sufficient to refuse the application.

The lattice design will allow views through the mast which is considered preferable to a solid structure. The mast, antennae, dishes, equipment cabinet and compound fencing are to be Holly Green, and landscaping is proposed around the compound. This will allow the structure to blend with the woodland and minimise its visual impact.

The retention of part of this woodland is considered essential to screen the mast, and if it were to be lost, the mast will be visually prominent and unacceptable. The screening of the compound is also seen as crucial to the acceptability of the proposal.

There are trees on the south east field boundary with Station Road to the south of the site which provide screening for the proposal, some of which are protected by TPOs.

The landscape is not protected by any local or national designation, and the impact on the landscape is not considered likely to be significant. The proposal is considered to be compatible with its surroundings and Policy DES8 of the local plan is therefore satisfied.

3) Impact on protected trees

The mast is to be sited close to trees that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order and the Council’s Tree officer’s comments are awaited. Members will be informed of these at the meeting.

4) Impact on the SNCI

Natural England has advised that Dorset Wildlife Trust be consulted on the application. It is hoped to be able to inform Members of their comments at the meeting.

Letters of objection have included concerns regarding the impact on public health from the operation of the mast.

23 An International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) certificate has been submitted to certify that the cumulative emissions from the proposed mast and those close to the site will meet ICNIRP guidelines.

Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 8 (telecommunications) advises that it is the government’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards, and that if a proposed mobile phone installation meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary for the planning authority to consider the health aspects further.

Conclusion

Although the site lies in the green belt and represents ‘inappropriate development’, it is considered that as there are no suitable sites outside the green belt, this represents very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the green belt

The visual impact of the mast and compound will be minimised by the woodland to the north, and trees along Station Road, and the compound will be screened by suitable planting.

It is recommended that approval be granted, subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement to require the removal of the mast and compound should trees be lost within a specified area within the woodland to the north, in addition to requiring a landscaping scheme for the compound to be submitted, agreed, implemented and maintained in perpetuity.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), there shall be no additional antennae or transmission dishes installed on the telecommunications mast hereby approved.

Reason: To allow the Local Planning Authority control over the appearance of the mast in the interests of visual amenity.

3 The external surfaces of the telecommunications mast, antennae, dishes, equipment cabinet and fencing around the compound shall be Holly Green, or any such colour that has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

Informatives:

1 Regard was had to the advice set out in PPG8: Telecommunications (2001) and PPG2: Green Belts (1995) in the determination of this application. 24

Policy Considerations and Reasons

6. Appendices 6.1 None.

7. Background Papers 7.1 Planning application and history files relating to each application.