PLANNING COMMITTEE 7Th August, 2012 SCHEDULE of PLANNING

Everyone 7 128 2335 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 0 0 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 No 07/08/2012 09:30:58 Chief Executive Old 80 1 Chief Executive Decision Contributors Contact Officer

PLANNING COMMITTEE 7th August, 2012 Agenda Item 6 Public Report

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of Report: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that: the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Development Manager's recommendation. Lead Members: Cllr Simon Tong – Environment Contact Officer: Neil Lancaster, Development Control Manager

2. Application Schedule

No. Application No. Site Address Pg.

1. 3/11/1001/FUL Ton Bridge Farm, Custard Hill, Gussage All Saints 2 2. 3/12/0103/FUL Adj Longham Study Centre, 125 Ringwood Road, 23 Longham 3. 3/12/0213/COU Sturminster Marshall Post Office And Stores, 27 Station 27 Road, Sturminster Marshall 4. 3/12/0394/HOU 43 Gallows Drive, West Parley, Ferndown 36 5. 3/12/0451/COU Preston, 62 Ham Lane, Ferndown 39 6. 3/12/0502/FUL Unit 19, Bessemer Close, Verwood 44 7. 3/12/0557/FUL Verwood CEVA Middle School , Howe Lane, Verwood 48 8. 3/12/0580/HOU 9 Ashley Drive West, Ashley Heath, Ringwood 53

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/11/1001/FUL

Proposal: Erect a detached dwelling house additional info rec'd 27.10.11 Site Address: Ton Bridge Farm, Custard Hill, Gussage All Saints, for Mr R Haycock Constraints Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Bournemouth International Airport Environment Agency Flood Zones Groundwater Source Protection Zone NATS Technical Sites Site Notice exp: 20 November 2011 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 10 November 2011

Vale Of Allen Parish No objection Council Comments: Comments need only be reported to Committee if the Officer's recommendation is at variance to the above.

Consultee Responses: County Highways The relocated vehicular access needs to be provided Development Liaison Officer with adequate sight lines in order for it to be deemed suitable and safe. I would suggest that visibility splays measuring a minimum of 2.40m by 43m be provided (allowing for 30mph approach speeds). These splays should be shown on the submitted plans and included within the red line indicative of the application area.

EDDC Design And From my perspective, there appear to be three main Conservation issues: Whether the proposal: 1. is an appropriate form of development in this open field location; 2. is of ‘exceptional' architectural quality and of innovative design; and 3. would harm the natural beauty of the AONB.

1. Is the proposal an appropriate form of development in this open field location? The site occupies agricultural land outside the village envelop; there are no national or Local Plan policies justifying the proposal. As noted in the design + access statement, the only justification for development in the open countryside is if a case can be made under Paragraph 11 of PPS7. This provides an opportunity for isolated new houses in the countryside. ‘Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design …may provide this special justification for granting planning permission'. If the proposed house is not of ‘exceptional' quality and

innovative design, it should be rejected on planning policy grounds.

2. Is the proposal of exceptional architectural quality and of innovative design? This paragraph in PPS7 is echoed in the draft NPPF, but in the light that such examples should be used as exemplars for the local area. ‘In determining applications, significant weight should be given to truly outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area'. PPS7 further requires the ‘highest standards in contemporary architecture', a ‘significant enhancement of its immediate setting' and ‘sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area'. I consider that the proposed design falls short on each count.

(i) ‘highest standards in contemporary architecture' I consider that the design comprises an admixture of disparate forms and materials. Its elevations contain disparate elevation design features too, especially the windows. The mammoth eye-brow window in the thatched element is regrettable. This lack of visual cohesion is not consistent with this criterion.

(ii) ‘significant enhancement of its immediate setting' The applicant's design + access statement notes the significance of the Dutch barn as a local landmark when approaching or leaving the village. It further comments that the appearance of the barn ‘is neither sympathetic nor attractive'. (Paragraph 4.5) ‘The replacement building should impact less and be more appropriate in its form and materials'. In response I suggest that, unlike the current proposal, this small, simple barn is entirely appropriate in this farmed landscape; such traditional structures are generally accepted in the open countryside and seldom considered ‘unsympathetic'.

(iii) ‘sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area' The East Dorset Countryside Design Summary encourages good, modern design (6i, code of practice), provided it is appropriate for the

particular locality. Any new development (contemporary or traditional) within the AONB should harmonise with local building traditions if the character of the landscape is to be preserved. The code of practice calls for a ‘high degree of sensitivity' when designing houses in the countryside. It notes that ‘the simplest building shapes harmonise best with the adjacent landscape' (6c). The existing barn is such an example. Cob and thatch are defining features of the local area. As noted in the Design Summary, building spans of such cottages seldom exceed 5m and ridge heights are 6.5m or less; the scale of buildings is therefore small and building forms are simple. The ridge height of the proposed thatched roof rises to 11m; the East- West elevation extends to 42m in length; that of the North-South elevation, 40m. Size, form and proportions are as important as the use of cob and thatch - probably more so (there are many buildings in the AONB built of brick and tiles). Design issues that stem from its disparate form and in-cohesive elevation design are compounded by its excessive scale. Distorting traditional forms and inflating their scale does not, in my view, represent good design, nor express sensitivity to the local area.

Innovative design. This design is unusual in the way it mixes vernacular and modern forms and styles. It also showcases a full repertoire of eco features. Certain elements may be used as exemplars for the local area, as recommended in the draft NPPF, but other elements should not, such as the inappropriate use of thatch or the extensive use of glass. For the reasons above, I consider that the assertion that the proposed design is of exceptional architectural quality is without foundation. There are no special circumstances that justify an exemption to policy. The views of the Architects' Panel should be sought.

3. Does the proposal harm the natural beauty of the AONB? The site lies outside the village and is contiguous with open landscape. Looking south-east from Ton Bridge, no other buildings are visible. Viewed from Whiteway Hill, the

Dutch barn forms a local focal point. This is a conspicuous site; it can be seen close-to from the adjacent road, and also viewed down from the adjacent hills. Any intensification of development on this site would therefore impact on the natural beauty and tranquillity of the AONB landscape. Diverging from the Countryside Design Summary guidance increases the risk of new development appearing out of place in the landscape. In exceptional cases, as referred to in PPS7 where the quality of the building is outstanding and its position in the landscape perfectly set, the outcome can be sublime. This is not such a case. Importantly, in landscapes of the highest national designation (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) the stakes are raised. A key principle of PPS7 is to maintain ‘the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes'. For the reasons above I do not consider that the design of the proposed eco-house meets the quality threshold required of PPS7. Further, I consider that the scale and design of the proposed development, exacerbated by its prominent location, would adversely impact on the open character and tranquillity of the AONB

AONB Office (FAO Mr R The Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Burden) AONB has been established under the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act to conserve and enhance the outstanding natural beauty of this area which straddles three County, one Unitary and five District councils. It is clear from the Act, subsequent government sponsored reports, and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 that natural beauty includes wildlife, scientific, and cultural heritage. It is also recognised that in relation to their landscape characteristics and quality, National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are equally important aspects of the nation's heritage and environmental capital. The AONB Management Plan (2009-2014) has been approved by the Secretary of State and was adopted by your Council early in 2009. The location is in the Southern Downland Belt landscape character area. Further details about the features and characteristics are in the Landscape Character Assessment 2003, which, I believe, available in your office and can also be accessed from our website on www.ccwwdaonb.org,uk. The AONB was provided with a pre-application copy

of the material and I commented that a professionally undertaken Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment would be needed if an application were to be submitted. I note that an earlier response from your office identified that the proposal would be contrary to a number of policies. The existence of a small Dutch barn on the site does not, in the opinion of the AONB, mean the site is already developed. Whilst the proposal does have some elements of a ‘Grand Design' it does extend development into the open countryside, close to a public road and water course. I note that ‘Impact' is not included in the title of the landscape document submitted. The photographs in the Landscape and Visual Assessment demonstrate that the site is isolated from existing residential development and Plan HDA2 shows how the site sits in the centre of the valley floor. The visual assessment does not appear to consider changes that could occur as the result of hedgerow management. The reference to ‘water meadows' in paragraph 6.2.1 is misleading, and I note that paragraph 7.2.5 states that the developed site will be viewed ‘as an extension to the village of Gussage All Saints'. The blocking of existing views along the valley by the development and associated planting does not appear to have been considered. To conclude, this is a significant proposal outside of the developed boundary of the village, and next to the Conservation Area. It appears to be contrary to the saved policies of your Council's Local Plan. The AONB is, therefore, very concerned that permitting such a development contrary to policy and effectively extending the built up area into an open location, could create an inappropriate precedent for both the District and the AONB. The AONB advises that it would not be wise to approve the proposal.

Environment Agency Response dated 14 November 2011

We object to the proposed development as it falls into a flood risk vulnerability category (more vulnerable) that is inappropriate to flood zone 3b, in which the site is located. We recommend that the application is refused on this basis. This is discussed below.

Vulnerability Classification Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) classifies development types according to their vulnerability to flood risk and gives guidance on which developments

are appropriate in each flood zone. PPS25 requires decision-makers to ensure that as part of the Sequential Test, development sites are appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed.

The proposed development type is classified as ‘more vulnerable' in accordance with table D.2 of PPS25.

In this case, the application site lies within an area identified as Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) by East Dorset District Council's joint Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), level 1 (table 9.3). Tables D.1 and D.3 of PPS25 make clear that the proposed development type is not compatible with flood zone 3b and should not therefore be permitted.

If the applicant can prove that the site falls within a lower risk flood zone by undertaking sound modelling of the site it would need to pass the sequential and exception tests (table D3, PPS25). If you deemed the sequential test to be passed, currently the FRA would not pass part c) of the Exception Test.

If you are minded to approve this application contrary to our objection, please re-consult us for further comments on the technical details of the FRA.

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) An amended FRA should include the ‘Draft Analysis of the Flood Plain' and the full site topographic survey, both referred to in the FRA but not submitted in support of the application. It should include details of a scheme for compensatory flood plain storage, and re-appraise the proposed finished floor level because the freeboard allowance (above the design flood level) is lower than is normally recommended. These details will be needed to allow any permission granted to be appropriately conditioned.

Foul Drainage and Groundwater Protection The site falls within a groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1). This is a zone of protection surrounding a public drinking water borehole, which is highly vulnerable to pollution and needs careful protection. Further information on SPZs can be found at http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37833.aspx

The application form states that the dwelling will be served by a cesspit (which is a sealed unit). However, drawing 002 shows a "reed bed for foul water

treatment draining to Gussage Brook", which would indicate that a package treatment plant may be proposed.

We request clarification of exactly which method of foul drainage is proposed. If a cesspit is proposed we require further details such as the exact location.

A package treatment plant discharging to the Gussage Brook may be possible, but the applicant would need to prove that there would be no interaction between the red bed/brook and underlying groundwaters. Also, this option would require a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. The applicant can contact our Customer Contact Centre on 08708 506506 for further information, or visit www.environment-agency.gov.uk. A permit (or exemption) must be obtained from us before any discharge occurs and before any development commences.

Further response received 13 December 2011:

Thank you for your email and attachment of 17 November 2011 (concerning the artificial maintenance of the Gussage Brook) and further email of the same date (concerning protected species).

Gussage Brook Augmentation The author of the letter you attached is correct, the Gussage Brook is an artificially maintained (augmented) stream and is kept flowing by Bournemouth Sembcorp Water. Of course, it is possible that augmentation may stop in future but that is speculation at this point. And it would not be the Environment Agency who would decide if the augmentation were to stop. It is under the control of Bournemouth Sembcorp Water.

Environmental Permit Although we have not received any further information from the applicant concerning the foul drainage proposals at the site the implication from the application documents is that a package treatment plant would discharge to reed bed and then to the Gussage Brook. As stated in our letter of 14 November 2011 the applicant will require an Environmental Permit to run the treatment plant. If granted the permit will specify a level of foul sewage treatment so that the discharge will not impact upon the aquatic species of the Gussage Brook. When

assessing the permit application we will make a judgement based on the current flow situation (i.e. will not take into account a possible future ceasing of augmentation).

Flood Risk For your information, we are currently in discussions with the applicant to assist with their re-modelling of flood zone 3 at the site. Their hope is that, with detailed modelling, the flood zone can be shown to be narrower in this location, thus favouring the flood risk implications for the development.

Further response received dated 30 May 2012:

We wish to WITHDRAW OUR OBJECTION, subject to conditions and Informatives.

Flood Risk Whilst the latest FRA demonstrates that the proposed development lies outside the functional floodplain (Flood Zone 3b), it still lies within Flood Zone 3a (paragraph 5.1), and hence demonstration of the Sequential and Exception Tests is still required. Ultimately this is a matter for you to decide upon, but we would remind you of the need for transparency on this matter. If you are minded to approve this proposal in Flood Zone 3a (new build residential) you may be setting a precedence.

In respect of the Exception Test the applicant is responsible for demonstrating all three parts (a, b & c). In respect of part c, based on the content of the latest FRA, we consider it passed. The condition ties the proposal to the latest version of the FRA, hence the previous versions (of the FRA) are superseded.

Natural England The application site lies with the Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ( CCWWD AONB). AONB's are a designation of national importance with the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Given the rural location and scale of the proposed property, Natural England recommends that the CCWWD AONB Team is fully consulted over any implications to the designated landscape of the AONB. In determining the application your authority should take full account of the AONB Team's advice and give the necessary weight to the relevant Dorset AONB Management Plan policies. Permission should only be

granted if you are fully satisfied that the proposal meets the statutory duty of regard to the purposes of conserving and enhancing the landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Natural England is concerned to ensure that the foul water treatment proposals ensure adequate and long term protection of the Gussage Brook in all operating conditions. In particular, the potential impact of flooding on the proposed reedbed treatment system needs to be considered. However, provided the proposals satisfy all the requirements of the Environment Agency, Natural England has no further comment on this aspect of the proposals. The application suggests a number of measures for enhancing biodiversity including a series of recommendations set out in a biodiversity enhancement report, however, it is unclear which of the proposals will be implemented. Natural England therefore recommends that any permission is made conditional on the preparation and implementation of a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) for the site. The plan should use the standard format set out in the Dorset Biodiversity Protocol and available on the Dorset County Council (DCC) website. Prior to submission the final plan should be approved by the DCC Natural Environment Team. Natural England advises that the BMP includes the following elements: - Measures to enhance and secure the natural riparian vegetation on the Gussage Brook. This should include the provision a suitable river corridor that is protected from future gardening activities. - Details of the new habitats that will be created by the development. For example, the location and extent of areas to be used for the creation of species rich grassland, reedbeds, ponds, etc. - Restoration of the sites existing hedgerows and extent and species composition of the new native hedge planting. - Replacement roosting opportunities for barn owl and little owl. - The provision of other bird and bat boxes. Ideally the development should incorporate boxes that are designed to be built into the fabric of the new building /associated strictures (eg Bat bricks, bat tiles, bird boxes for house martin, house sparrow, swallow etc.). - Artificial otter holt - The planting of specimen native trees.

Neighbour Comments:

The Reverend Canon John We have three major concerns about the proposed And Mrs Mary Williams The building: Old Bakery, Gussage All 1. There is the question of access to and from the Saints proposed dwelling onto what is a narrow lane leading downhill from Amen Corner. The steepness of the hill and the lack of visibility from the proposed entrance of the site make it potentially dangerous. 2. The second concern we have is the proposed size and design of the dwelling. It seems from the proposals that the plan is to build an "architecturally unusual" house. We believe that there is nothing like the proposed house anywhere in the whole Gussage Valley area. There are examples of recently built houses in this valley all of which are in keeping with the area and do not "look out of place". We fear that the proposed building will be very different from anything remotely comparable and will look far too unusual. 3. We are puzzled by the proposal to build on what seems to be agricultural land. We notice from the proposals that the site is referred to as "pastoral" rather than "agricultural" land. Is this an exception and if so, will further such land be built on in time and alter the whole character of this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? Col P Norbury Apple Tree Object House, Gussage All Saints 1. The site is outside the village envelope 2. It is what I understand to be Grade 1 agricultural land 3. The plan for the drawing of water from the Terrig and the disposal of foul draining to the same stream is unacceptable as this stream, under the control of the Bournemouth Water Company, flows into the River Allen and onwards into the water supply chain. Wimborne Civic Society Support 9 Park Homer Drive, Colehill 1 This is a very interesting proposal over which our committee was divided. A majority favoured approval of this bold experiment. A minority thought the risk of failing to sustain the project would be too high.

2 The site under consideration lies within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy LSCON1 thereby comes into the reckoning, together with the requirements of PPS7 and DES8. As far as the AONB is concerned we do not feel the development would harm the natural beauty of the landscape. We also

consider that, in the terms of paragraph 11 of PPS7, the innovative nature of the design of the proposed isolated house would justify granting planning permission. Finally we believe that the requirements of Policy DES8(c) would be met.

3 The expressed intention of the applicants to source structural ingredients on site, in the form of hemp and sedum, with the use of local wood and reed beds would be eco-friendly and welcome. The investigations into the use of a heat pump, biomass burner and solar preheating with photovoltaic panels also look promising.

4 In terms of the carbon footprint of the proposed development the downsides are that the Gussage Brook cannot be guaranteed to provide water energy nor is a wind turbine considered feasible. Water and some electricity would appear to be needed from the public utility companies supplying the area. The aspect of most concern is that the plot lies within an identified flood zone. The site itself is reasonably level but rises more steeply from the northern boundary. Care would have to be exercised to prevent the property from potential inundation.

5 We support this adventurous scheme but have worries about the infrastructure and sustainability of the development.

F J W Wilson Ridgewood, Summary of letter received 17 November 2011: Gussage All Saints Object The site is outside the Village envelope and in a conservation area. I would submit that it is not a suitable site for any type of residential development, being on the edge of what is a flood plain. The design is controversial and would not blend in with the existing dwellings in the Village. I understand the proposed vehicular access to the site will be higher up Custard Hill than the existing. Custard Hill is very narrow and an access there would constitute a potential hazard. I do maintain that the proposed development, however interesting the design may be, is in the wrong place.

Officers Report

This application is brought to Committee primarily because the Officer’s recommendation is contrary to the Parish Council’s representation. The delay in

bringing this application forward was due to the Agent requesting time to clear the Environment Agency’s objection, which has now been lifted.

Location

The settlement of Gussage All Saints has a predominantly linear form. It is surrounded by rising ground to the NE and SW with the Gussage Stream running to the SE of the village. The village ‘back lane’, in this case named Mead Lane follows the south eastern bank of the Gussage at some distance from the stream. There is a small historic group around the Church and Manor Farmhouse at the north eastern end of the main street where it is joined by Mead Lane. Other than this high status scatter the settlement is contained between this junction and Amen Corner at the south eastern end of the main street. Many buildings (especially those on the southern side, which appear older) are hard against the highway with many gable on, giving an intimate feel to the village.

The Gussage All Saints Conservation Area boundary is drawn at the rear of the dwellings on the northern side of the village. To the south and east it is bounded by Mead Lane and Ton Bridge. The Gussage All Saints Conservation Area Appraisal was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance in September 2005. Under the section titled ‘Scope’ the Appraisal states:

‘Gussage Brook and the water meadows to the south form distinctive features of the Conservation Area. For this reason the boundary has been extended to include the 19th century Ton Bridge. There are glimpses of the meadows from between buildings in the village street , and a wider view from the Drovers Inn.’

Under ‘Treescape’ the Appraisal continues;

‘At the eastern end of the village the enclosure is of a different kind. The narrow village lane is bounded by high hedges and hedge-banks that continue to Amen Corner and beyond into Custard Hill. The resulting tunnel effect provides a dramatic entrance to the conservation area.’

The Gussage Valley and Gussage All Saints in particular is mentioned in this Council’s Landscape Character Assessment 2008. The description of Gussage All Saints states:

‘Many of the buildings in Gussage All Saints are set well inside their plots, away from the road. The older, thatched buildings however tend to be positioned closer to the road and this feature in particular reinforces the rural character of the village and strengthens local identity. Small humped bridges over Gussage Stream at each end of Gussage All Saints and the eighteenth century Packhorse Bridge at Gussage St Michael emphasises the valley’s historic significance.’

Site Description

The site is currently occupied by a steel framed ‘Dutch’ barn. When approaching from Gussage Elms down Whiteway Hill there is a smaller open steel barn glimpsed through a gap in the eastern bank. From Amen Corner to the north east the approach to the site descends through the banked and treed tunnel referred to in the

conservation area appraisal until it opens up at the valley floor. Many of the lanes are deep cut with high banking that restricts views with the site not visible from Bowerswain Hollow due to the cut.

The site and barn are glimpsed through gaps before the valley floor opens up at Ton Bridge, where the site is viewed over the roadside vegetation. The barn sits in an open site bounded by the Gussage Stream to the SE and SW with Custard Hill to the NW and rising ground to the NE. The barn is steel framed with steel Fink trusses to the main roof and outshuts to the SW and NE and is clad in steel sheeting. There is a Barn Owl box in the main barn with recent pellets underneath and a Little Owl box in one of the outshuts. The barn appears to be used for storing farm machinery and round bales.

Steel framed ‘Dutch’ barns of this type appear to be a feature of the farmland immediately surrounding the village. When approaching the village from Gussage St Michael and the west there is a large steel barn near the brick and tile buildings of the Manor Farm range. The existing building is an example of industrialised rural vernacular that sits comfortably and appropriately in this open agrarian landscape.

The site is separated from the village infill envelope by the Amen Corner crossroads and is stepped SW from the natural linear development of the village.

The Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing barn and erect a two storey four bedroom house at the northern end of the site. This will have a thatched L shaped range with a garage leg against Custard Hill with the other range projecting out into the site. This leg with its convex curve is joined via an area of flat roof to a sedum roofed element with extensive south facing glazing. The dwelling has extensive decked walkways to the south with breakfast and dining areas between the two different parts. Boardwalks extend out towards the far corners of the site and embrace a proposed new wetland area fed from the stream. The drawings show a reed bed foul water treatment area sited in the eastern corner draining into the Gussage stream.

Policies

The proposal is outside the village infilling envelope. It is within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB. The relevant Local Plan Policy is CSIDE1 and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

In the Planning and Design Statement the Agent stated the site ‘falls within designated countryside where development is strictly controlled. The application is made under the provisions of Paragraph 11 of PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) which would allow, exceptionally, an isolated new house to be provided within the countryside provided it demonstrates exceptional quality and innovation in design.’ This guidance has now been superseded by Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraph 11 of the superseded PPS7 stated that:

‘Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be truly outstanding and groundbreaking, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area.’

Subsequently the Agent and Architect submitted a further statement outlining how Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework continued to support the application. These statements have been taken into account when preparing this Report.

Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:

“To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or

the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.

Such a design should:

– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas;

– reflect the highest standards in architecture;

– significantly enhance its immediate setting; and

– be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.”

In the NPPF under the section dealing with ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment’ Paragraph 115 states:

“Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape in scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.”

In the NPPF under the section titled ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ Paragraph 129 states;

“Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. . . . “

The following appraises the proposal against the guidance in Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Truly outstanding or innovative

The L – shaped part of the dwelling will be roofed in combed wheat with the walling in structural timber with an outer skin of a mixture of the lignin rich part of the hemp plant (shiv) mixed with building lime. This mix has the trade name of ‘Hemcrete’. The use of timber framing for large dwellings is historically well established and not unusual. The illustrative material provided shows a slurry mix being poured (presumably between shuttering) but the products website indicates this will be a non loadbearing element of the walling as the material has a very low compressive strength. Both the lime mix and the plant component appear to be patented materials. The hemp component has to be prepared at the Halesworth manufacturing centre to comply with the company’s quality control. The finish has a novelty value but functionally is no different from the non structural lathe and lime plaster infill panelling used in traditional green oak construction or any other combination of tile or timber cladding combined with a vapour control barrier. The planning statement states the hemp may be grown on site but if this was the case it would have similar road miles (growing on site, transported to Halesworth for processing and return to the application site) to other building materials.

The Brightspace Design and Access Statement refers in Para. 3.7 to an intention to use local vernacular materials in the construction of the dwelling but there is no elaboration on how or where these materials will be used. The proposed material (Hemcrete) appears to be inferior to cob construction which is capable of supporting modest domestic floor loadings and openings and, when coated with a lime wash, has a similar ability to ‘breathe’. The Council therefore contends that the material may be novel but is not ground breaking nor has any advantage over traditional earth based materials.

Moving on to the thatching, the garage roof appears to have an angle of approximately 43 degrees at its mid-point with a shallower ‘wash out’ towards the asymmetrical hipped end. Guidance from the National Society of Master Thatchers advises a pitch of not less than 45 degrees. This indicates the thatch may have a short life in service. The remainder of the materials, such as the polymeric membrane, are familiar from commercial applications. Sedum roofs are now commonplace and have become clichéd . The principle of a solar core wall heated by means of full wall glazing is well established and is certainly not ground breaking.

While interesting, none of the materials or construction methods are sufficiently innovative to meet the requirements of Para. 55.

In addition to the above it is considered the proposal fails to be easily assimmilated into the landscape as required by Policy DES8 of the Local Plan and fails to accord with the aforementioned Rural Design Summary as required by emerging Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.

Reflect the Highest Standards of Architecture

This Council’s Architects Panel did not support the application. They considered the plot ‘too small for a PPS7/Para. 55 house resulting in a house out of scale to the plot size: The use of thatch is inappropriate on this scale: If thatch had been used in some innovative way it might work: Impact of light at night from behind glazing: Glazing looks out of scale: Everything thrown at it in terms of ‘eco’ but not sufficient justification: Strange mix of pitched thatch roof and sedum – too complicated: A very interesting and unusual design but not exceptional: Doesn’t have the right degree of permanence – not a suitable legacy for our generation: Scale of house does not respect setting – will harm AONB: Shouldn’t relate to village – must stand in isolation: Inappropriate gateway to the village’.

Paragraph 55 requires that the design should be “truly outstanding or innovative” and of “the highest standards in architecture”. The Design and Conservation Officer’s observations are reported in full earlier but are paraphrased below. He considers the proposal “an admixture of disparate forms and materials. Its elevations contain disparate elevation design features too, especially the windows. The mammoth eye- brow window in the thatched element is regrettable. This lack of visual cohesion is not consistent with this criterion.”

Significantly Enhance its Immediate Surroundings

Regarding ‘significantly enhance its immediate setting’, the Applicant’s design and access statement notes the significance of the Dutch barn as a local landmark. The Design and Conservation Officer suggests that unlike the current proposal ‘this small, simple barn is entirely appropriate in this farmed landscape; such traditional structures are generally accepted in the open landscape and seldom considered ‘unsympathetic’’

Sensitive to the Defining Characteristics of the Local Area

The Design and Conservation Officer states the East Dorset Countryside Design Summary encourages good modern design provided it is appropriate to the particular locality (Ref. 6i) The code of practice calls for a ‘high degree of sensitivity’ when designing houses in the countryside. It notes that the ‘the simplest building shapes harmonise best with the adjacent landscape (Ref. 6c) The basic form, proportions and materials should follow the guidance contained in the Code of Practice. The existing barn is such an example. Cob and thatch are defining features of the surrounding area. As noted in the Design Summary, building spans of such cottages seldom exceed 5m and ridge heights are 6.5m or less; the scale of buildings is therefore small and building forms are simple . The ridge height of the proposed

thatched roof rises to 11m; the East-West elevation extends to 42m in length ; that of the North-South to 40m.

Size, form and proportions are as important as the use of cob and thatch, probably more so (there are many buildings in the AONB built of brick and tiles) Design issues that stem from its disparate form and incohesive elevational design are compounded by its excessive scale . Distorting traditional forms and inflating their scale does not represent good design nor express sensitivity to the characteristics of the local area.

Does the Proposal Conserve the Landscape and Scenic Beauty of the AONB as Required by Para. 115 of the NPPF.

The site lies outside the village and is contiguous with open landscape. Looking south- east from Ton Bridge, no other buildings are visible. Viewed from Whiteways Hill, the Dutch barn forms a local focal point. This is a conspicuous site; it can be seen close to from the adjacent road, and also viewed from the adjacent hills. Any intensification of development on this site would therefore impact on the natural beauty and tranquillity of the AONB. Diverging from the Countryside Design Summary guidance increases the risk of new development appearing out of place in the landscape. In exceptional cases, as referred to in the NPPF where the quality of the building is outstanding and the position in the landscape perfectly set, the outcome can be sublime. This is not such a case. Importantly, in landscapes of the highest national designation (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) the stakes are raised. A key principle of Para.115 is to maintain ‘ the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’.

For this reason it is considered the design of the proposed ‘eco-house’ does not meet the quality threshold required of Para. 55 of the NPPF. Further, the scale and design of the proposed development, exacerbated by its prominent location, would adversely impact upon the open character and tranquillity of the AONB.

The AONB Office in their representation express concern that permitting such a development contrary to policy and effectively extending the built up area into an open location, could create an inappropriate precedent for both the District and the AONB. For this reason the AONB advises it would not be wise to approve the proposal.

Highway Safety

Highways Liaison comment that the relocated vehicular access needs to be provided with adequate sight lines in order for it to be deemed suitable and safe. It is suggested that visibility splays measuring a minimum of 2.40m by 43m be provided, allowing for 30mph approach speeds. These splays should be shown on amended plans and included within the red line. Providing a y dimension of 43m to the north (notwithstanding the removal of the roadside banking that would result in the loss of enclosure mentioned in the Conservation Area Appraisal ) may place the splay outside the existing red line. This is being investigated by Highways Liaison and will be reported to the Committee

Environmental Agency

The Agency initially objected to the proposal as residential use falls into a flood risk vulnerability category (more vulnerable) that is inappropriate to flood zone 3a, which the site is within. The Agent requested time to address this objection. In addition the site falls within a groundwater source protection zone. There was also an ambiguity in that the application form referred to foul drainage being provided by a (sealed) cesspit while the submitted plans show a reed bed filtration scheme which ultimately discharged into the Gussage Brook.

Regarding risk of flooding, The EA subsequently withdrew its objection after receiving a revised flood risk assessment but required that any permission was carried out in accordance with that flood risk assessment. A condition to that effect was appended.

However, the letter from the EA continued:

‘Whilst the latest FRA demonstrates that the proposed development lies outside the functional floodplain (Flood Zone 3b), it still lies within Flood Zone 3a (paragraph 5.1), and hence demonstration of the Sequential and Exception Tests is still required. Ultimately this is a matter for you to decide upon, but we would remind you of the need for transparency on this matter. If you are minded to approve this proposal in Flood Zone 3a (new build residential) you may be setting a precedence. In respect of the Exception Test the applicant is responsible for demonstrating all three parts (a, b & c). In respect of part c, based on the content of the latest FRA, we consider it passed (subject to the condition given below). The condition ties the proposal to the latest version of the FRA, hence the previous versions (of the FRA) are superseded.’

Flood risk advice is contained in Paras. 99 to 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This is developed by Paras. 2 to 19 of the Technical Guidance.

The site is within Flood Zone 3a. The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest flood zoning. This Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is currently at Level 1 therefore any sequential test should be based on the Environment Agency Flood Zones.

In this instance the Applicant has furnished a site specific flood risk assessment which shows the contours of the site in detail and in relation to finished floor level. On the basis of the information supplied the EA considers the proposal has passed Part (c) of the ‘old’ test in PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk in that the development will be safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

This guidance has now been superseded by Paras. 101 -103 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Para. 101 states development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Agent considers the proposal is exempt from this consideration as it is an ‘exceptional quality’ application. Para.55 of the NPPF (Which the applicant cites in support of the application) recites the sustainability requirement that runs as a thread through the NPPF. Even in such a special case there are alternative sites around the village where the same arguments could be put forward where flooding would not be an issue.

The guidance accompanying the NPPF states that more vulnerable uses (such as dwellings) should only be permitted in Flood Zone 3a if the exception test is passed. The exception test is contained in Para. 102 and states;

“It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and A site specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking into account the vulnerability of the users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”

While the proposal may pass the latter part it does not provide wider sustainability benefits to the community, being essentially a large private detached house. The supporting documents refer to the potential for the dwelling providing an educational function but no agreement has been entered into and in reality it is unlikely the occupants would want more than a token school presence.

For the above reasons the Local Planning Authority considers the proposal fails the sequential test contained in the NPPF. Even if this obstacle were to be surmounted the proposal also fails the former part of the exception test. Para. 103 of the NPPF further advises on determining planning applications but as the proposal fails to pass the sequential and exceptions tests this is considered unnecessary.

Regarding groundwater protection, the site falls within a groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1). As there is ambiguity regarding the method of foul drainage the EA suggests this could be addressed by a condition requiring details of foul water disposal.

Contributions to Offset Impact upon Protected Heathland and Transport Infrastructure

The site is more than 5 kilometres from the nearest Dorset Heathland and outside the area which attracts a contribution towards transport infrastructure.

Representations Received

Letter of support from Wimborne Civic Society – We support this adventurous scheme but have worries about the infrastructure and sustainability of the development.

Three letters of objection; Site outside the village envelope. Extremely prominent when entering the village from Whiteways Hill. Design controversial and not blend in with existing dwellings in the village. Custard Hill very narrow, access would constitute a potential hazard. Site is Grade 1 agricultural land. Disposal of foul drainage to stream is unacceptable. ‘Look out of place’, will look far too unusual.

Summary

The Agent has stated they acknowledge the proposal is contrary to policy and should therefore be appraised (originally) against Paragraph 11 of PPS7 – Sustainable

Development in Rural Areas and subsequently against Para. 55 of the NPPF. This Council considers the proposed dwelling fails to meet the standard of 'exceptional quality' or 'innovative nature of the design' required for new isolated homes in the countryside for the following reasons: The novel materials and methods proposed are neither groundbreaking nor markedly superior in performance to traditional vernacular materials, nor are established building materials or methods used in any innovative manner: The proposal comprises a mix of disparate forms and materials with the lack of visual cohesion producing a building that does not reflect the highest standards of architecture.

The existing Dutch barn is an entirely appropriate local landmark in this open farmed landscape while the proposal with its essentially residential nature and boardwalks introduces a primarily domestic element to this agrarian site, thereby failing to enhance its immediate surroundings: The Code of Practice for the East Dorset Countryside Design Summary notes that 'the simplest building shapes harmonise best with the adjacent landscape'. In this instance the dimensions and bulk of the proposal combined with its complex form does not relate to the small simple planform of the dwellings in the adjoining settlement where building spans seldom exceed 5 metres and ridge heights are 6.5 metres or less, leading to a building that is not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. For all of the above reasons the proposal fails to meet the criterion laid out in Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In addition it fails to be easily assimilated into the landscape as required by Policy DES8 of the Local Plan and fails to accord with the Rural Design Summary as required by emerging Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.

The construction of the proposed dwelling on this conspicuous site outside the existing village and contiguous with open landscape, not aided by its excessive scale and bulk, would impact upon the natural beauty and tranquillity of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would damage the rural character of the countryside contrary to Policy CSIDE1 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

The proposal is sited in Flood Zone 3a and is described as a 'more vulnerable use' by the Environment Agency. More vulnerable uses should only be permitted in this Zone if the Exception Test (as described by Para. 102 of the National Planning policy Framework) is passed. Before the proposal can be appraised against these criterion it must pass the Sequential Test which requires that development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. In this instance there are other sites available around the settlement where lower Flood Zone ratings apply where this form of residential development can be tested against the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework For all of the above reasons the proposal fails to accord with the guidance contained in Paragraphs 100 to 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

1 The proposed dwelling fails to meet the standard of 'exceptional quality' or 'innovative nature of the design' required for new isolated homes in the countryside for the following reasons: The novel materials and methods proposed are neither groundbreaking nor markedly superior in performance to traditional vernacular materials, nor are established building materials or methods used in any innovative manner: The proposal comprises a mix of disparate forms and materials with the lack of visual cohesion producing a building that does not reflect the highest standards of architecture: The existing Dutch barn is an entirely appropriate local landmark in this open farmed landscape while the proposal with its essentially residential nature and boardwalks introduces a primarily domestic element to this agrarian site, thereby failing to enhance its immediate surroundings: The Code of Practice for the East Dorset Countryside Design Summary notes that 'the simplest building shapes harmonise best with the adjacent landscape'. In this instance the dimensions and bulk of the proposal combined with its complex form does not relate to the small simple planform of the dwellings in the adjoining settlement where building spans seldom exceed 5 metres and ridge heights are 6.5 metres or less. The proposed dwelling with a ridge height of over 11 metres would produce a building that is not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. For all of the above reasons the proposal fails to meet the criterion laid out in Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and fails to be easily assimilated into the landscape as required by Policy DES8 of the Local Plan and fails to accord with the Rural Design Summary as required by emerging Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.

2 The construction of the proposed dwelling on this conspicuous site outside the existing village and contiguous with open landscape, not aided by its excessive scale and bulk, would impact upon the natural beauty and tranquillity of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would damage the rural character of the countryside contrary to Policy CSIDE1 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

3 The proposal is sited in Flood Zone 3a and is described as a 'more vulnerable use' by the Environment Agency. More vulnerable uses should only be permitted in this Zone if the Exception Test (as described by Para. 102 of the National Planning policy Framework) is passed. Before the proposal can be appraised against these criterion it must pass the Sequential Test which requires that development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. In this instance there are other sites available around the settlement where lower Flood Zone ratings apply where this form of residential development can be tested against the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework For all of the above reasons the proposal fails to accord with the guidance contained in Paragraphs 100 to 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives:

1 In reaching this decision the Council has had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 CSIDE1

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/12/0103/FUL

Proposal: Siting of a 12.2m x 2.4m x 3m storage container

Site Address: Adj Longham Study Centre, 125 Ringwood Road, Longham, for Mr Hook Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Green Belt LP Groundwater Source Protection Zone Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Site Notice exp: 14 June 2012 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: N/A

Ferndown Town Council No objection Comments: The Committee were of the view that permission only be granted for a limited period (2 years was the period put forward by councillors)

Consultee Responses:

Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

This application comes to committee as the officer recommendation is for a temporary approval for 5 years, whereas the Town Council consider that a period of 2 years is appropriate.

The proposal is to site a storage container measuring 12.2m long by 3m wide and 2.4m tall to the north east of the Longham Study Centre in this Green Belt and countryside location. The site also lies in the area where the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2010 (SEDTCS) applies.

The container would be sited on railway sleepers on an area of grass behind the existing bike storage racks, and will back onto the existing boundary hedge. The

lake is to the west, and its surface is raised up above the level of the application site and car park beyond to the south east.

The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application proposes a landscaping scheme comprising a 1.8m tall trellis fence around the container which would support planting to reduce the container’s visual impact.

The main issue is considered to be the proposal’s impact on the Green Belt.

The container is needed to store kayaks and canoes for the Dorset Ultimate Canoe Kayak Squad (DUCKS) whose members use the lakes. There is no appropriate storage space for kayaks or canoes in the existing Longham Study Centre building, and these are brought to the site by members using private motor vehicles.

The current storage space is not secure and is open to the elements, which has resulted in damage to boats and theft of equipment.

The club has a number of 38ft long kayaks and these are one piece craft that are not able to be dismantled to make them shorter.

The Squad instructs local schools, clubs and scout and guide groups and the use of the lakes by the club represents a quiet outdoor recreational use. Members are able to use the facilities of the Study Centre and this has been agreed in the Squad’s current lease which started in April 2011 (for 7 years).

The applicant contends that by having temporary storage on site, the club will be able to function better, having all its equipment secure and to hand. This will allow flexibility to cater for fluctuating membership levels and prevent equipment having to be transported to the lakes for every session. This would reduce vehicle trips.

The current off-site storage arrangements for the club involve transporting equipment from Christchurch to the site at least twice a week, which has an environmental impact in terms of fuel use, and increases the likelihood of craft being damaged in transit.

The applicants have stated that they cannot afford at present to construct a timber building, and this option has insurance implications. They have however confirmed they would be happy to clad the container in timber to reduce its visual impact.

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate facility for outdoor sport and recreation when assessed against the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF).

The use of the lakes by the club will (together with the lakes’ other uses) help to preserve the openness of the Green Belt, and therefore the proposal is considered to represent appropriate development in the Green Belt.

There will be some impact on the openness of the Green Belt and its visual amenities, given the scale of the proposed structure and its utilitarian appearance. However if the container is to be appropriately clad with timber boarding (as offered by the applicant) and the proposed trellis fencing is to be omitted from the

landscaping proposals, its visual impact would be acceptable. It would then present a low-key ancillary and subservient outbuilding to the existing study centre, which could be acceptable on a temporary basis in the expectation that in the long-term a permanent building of better design could replace it.

Therefore the proposal accords with paragraphs 88 and 89 of the NPPF. It also complies with saved Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, as it would be compatible with its surroundings in terms of its visual impact.

The proposal should not result in any greater number of vehicle trips that are currently generated by the existing use, and therefore no contribution is considered necessary under the SEDTCS.

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan rec'd 4.5.2012 Site Location Plan, Site Plan and Elevations rec'd 4.5.2012 Block diagram rec'd 4.5.2012

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 The storage container hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition as grass on or before the 7th August 2017, in accordance with a scheme of work which shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To afford a trial run for the development to ascertain its effect on the area.

4 Within three months of its installation on site and prior to its use for storage of canoes, kayaks or other water craft and equipment, the container that is hereby approved to be sited on the application site shall be clad with timber in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Once approved the cladding shall remain in place until the container is removed from the site.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the Green Belt.

5 The landscaping offered in the application is not approved and prior to the container being brought onto the site, alternative proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local 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 BS5837:2012 immediately following the siting of the container. 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

Informatives:

1 Regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 was had in the determination of the application.

2 In respect of the landscaping condition, the applicant is advised that a hedge to the south of the container would be suitable and no fencing should be part of the landscaping scheme.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/12/0213/COU

Proposal: Use of Existing Ground Floor Residential Space as Retail in Conjunction With the Existing Shop; Demolish Existing Detached Store Building at Side and Construct Larger Store; Form Self - Contained Flat at 1st and 2nd Floor with formation of new layby for parking opposite the shop

Site Address: Sturminster Marshall Post Office And Stores, 27 Station Road, Sturminster Marshall, for Mr And Mrs M Oliver

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km Consultation Area Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP

Site Notice exp: 26 May 2012 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 17 May 2012

Sturminster Marshall Objection on planning grounds stated below: Parish Council Comments: Increase in parking problems as insufficient at present. Clarification required re: layby proposition as Council told in past that there was insufficient width available. Positioning of gas bottles?

Consultee Responses: County Highways No objection, subject to the following condition. Development Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Mr Roger Wilkinson Unit 28 I comment as the agent for this application. Old Street, Sturminster Marshall I refer to the comments by G Hughes and feel I must offer the following points of clarification.

The planning application form included as part of the description; 'provide new lay-by'.

The planters referred to have recently been installed and were not present earlier this year when the survey was undertaken .

I am not aware of any consultation regarding the provision of the planters, which appear to have worsened road safety. Parked vehicles now tend to project further into the highway leaving less space for passing vehicles and for pedestrians who have to walk between the parked vehicle and the planters.

Formalising the parking arrangement will undoubtedly improve safety for everyone, as some vehicles will no longer need to park on the pavement.

There is no reason to suggest that there will be more parked cars along the road, it is likely to be the same number but with improved parking arrangements.

The width of the pavement is 1800mm and the verge min 3400mm (not less than 2400mm - as suggested) making a total of 5200mm. The new lay-by would be 2400mm (national standard) and the footpath 1800mm, leaving min 1000mm between the footpath and the fence.

By providing formal parking arrangements opposite the shop it will increase the space available for turning out of the shop forecourt, thereby making it easier and safer to manoeuvre.

Whilst the delivery vehicles may be larger there will be no increase in the number of deliveries, which I am assured do not normally take place during the morning and evening busy periods. In this respect I can confirm that a delivery arrived this morning at approx 11.00am, when the road was fairly quiet.

Regarding the use of Bailie Gate Industrial Estate, this would clearly increase parking at a very busy roundabout, worsening the situation for most people. The gates to the industrial estate are locked at 6- 00pm every day, at 12-00 noon on Saturday and all day Sunday and Bank Holidays, so parking would only be available on the highway. The differing ground levels would preclude access directly from the High Street.

Finally as a point to note, many of us who have premises on the industrial estate already walk to the Post Office.

On a personal note and as a resident of the village I welcome the improvement of facilities, which I believe will improve safety and improve the service offered by the shop. Geraint Hughes Larks Rise, Object 31B Station Road I refer to the above application for the expansion of the Spar on Station Road, Sturminster Marshall. We are pleased to have the shop in the village, despite the disturbance that occurs from servicing vehicles, from lorries from the industrial estate parking on

pavements in the morning and from occasional inconsiderate parking. We do feel however that the combination of the larger shop, larger service vehicles and the proposed parking bays will exacerbate current problems and make the situation unacceptable. We therefore feel we have to object to the application for the reasons given below. Notification of application I feel I must start by stating how disappointing it has been that for a large period of time there was no notice of the application displayed outside the shop. We have spoken to people living on Station Road who even this weekend were unaware of the planning application and should have had greater opportunity to comment, whether to support or object. It is also disappointing that the application description did not include the proposal to provide the new layby as this is one of the most important elements of the application, and would be of significant interest to all residents of the village and users of the shop. Visual Impact The plans show a bay 2.4m wide for parking spaces directly opposite the shop. This side of Station Road is characterised by the green verge and hedge and its rural character is part of the arrival into the village, defining the green belt boundary. This rural character has been enhanced by the provision of three wooden planters by the parish council. In order to accommodate the proposed parking bay at least two of these planters would be lost (although this is not mentioned in the plans) as well as the green verge. This would have a significantly detrimental impact on the character of the street and have a negative visual impact on the arrival into the village. We are aware that the applicant's preference is to provide a car park within the existing field opposite the shop. This would extend development into the green belt and have an even greater visual impact. Children's safety This is a busy area for children getting buses to school in the morning, and coming home in the afternoon. Their safety is already compromised by cars, lorries and service vehicles blocking pavements on both sides of the road. More parked cars along the street will reduce visibility for children and all pedestrians crossing the street to and from the bus stops in this area. This will be particularly the case in the morning when traffic is greater and school buses are picking up outside the Spar.

I am not convinced that there is enough space in the area shown to accommodate a 2.4m wide parking bay and the existing width of footpath. There is at most 2.4m of grass verge and in some areas it appears less where the trees protrude into the verge. This would mean having the pavement hard up against the hedge with no grass verge at all and in some areas I believe the width of the pavement is likely to be reduced by having to accommodate the parking bays. Vehicular safety Bringing additional parking directly opposite the existing parking will create conflicting turning movements. In the morning lorries and buses often have to travel in the middle of the road to avoid vehicles parked along both sides of the street. For cars exiting the parking bay, it will be very difficult to see in both directions along the street and this will lead to an increased number of accidents. 2.4m is quite a narrow space for on-street parking on a busy street. This is likely to result in cars protruding into the street which will be dangerous. Cars will have to reverse into these narrow spaces at busy times in the morning which will cause further difficulties for traffic and pedestrians. Impact of delivery vehicles The current servicing arrangements for the shop are already inadequate. In order to service the shop the lorries have to either: - Park parallel to the shop and block the shop's existing parking spaces, - Park with its rear to the shop and protrude into the carriageway across the pavement, - Park further along the street and block residential accesses, or - Park on the pavement on the opposite side of Station Road and trolley deliveries across the road. Servicing vehicles often arrive at peak times in the morning and when children are getting the bus to school. All of these arrangements are unsafe and unacceptable. The Design & Access Statement states that the application will result in even larger delivery vehicles which will exacerbate the problems. Alternative arrangements I appreciate that the planning application needs to be judged on its merits and I summarise below the reasons why I believe the proposals are unacceptable. I do believe however that there is an alternative solution for the Spar and the village. Further land has been allocated for the expansion of the industrial estate, and a large plot still exists on the High Street frontage at the entrance to the estate. An

industrial unit on this plot would create a large and unattractive blank elevation to the High Street. It would clearly be preferable for the applicants to negotiate with Birchmere (as owners of the industrial estate) to provide a new, purpose-built shop and café on this area. This has a number of potential benefits: - It would provide a better frontage to the High Street. - It would provide a cluster of facilities with the pharmacy, pub and gym, as well as the school. - It would be more central to encourage walking within the village. - It would encourage walking from within the industrial estate. - It could provide adequate servicing arrangements. - It could provide additional parking to relieve pressure on the High Street outside the school. This would seem to be a much more sensible long term solution for the applicants and the village. I understand there would be no planning policy objections to retail use on this site and I believe it would have considerable support from village residents. Summary I do not believe planning permission should be granted for the following reasons: - The loss of the green verge and planters would have an unacceptable visual impact in this important gateway to the village and on the green belt boundary. - The additional parking bays would create more vehicular conflict and prejudice pedestrian safety, particularly for school children. - The increased size of the servicing vehicles would have an unacceptable impact on pedestrian and vehicular safety. I would urge the council to consider a more appropriate long term solution for the village as part of the wider proposals for expanding the industrial estate and to encourage the applicant to enter into discussions with Birchmere. Mr & Mrs Gearey Swallow Summary of letter dated 1 June 2012: View, 31C Station Road Object 1. Lack of sufficient parking - currently there are 5 designated parking spaces which is insufficient for the volumes of people who use the facility at the moment. Anti social parking (ie drives completely blocked) is encountered on a daily basis by all residents along Station Road and especially by those closest to it. 2. Over development of site - the extension of the shop and the provision of two flats is over

development of the site footprint. 3. Existing road layout unfit for purpose - The existing white advisory lines are ignored by road users and these problems will increase significantly as greater numbers and oversized delivery vehicles use the shop. 4. Insufficient parking area for deliveries - Large articulated lorries making deliveries 24/7 to the store have no designed delivery parking and so block the pavement on the opposite side of the road or block driveways of residents' homes and can take up to 30 minutes to complete.

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the officer recommendation is for approval and the Parish Council has objected. There have also been two letters of objection from local residents.

The application is to use the existing ground floor residential accommodation at the rear of the shop as retail space to enlarge the existing shop. A flat is also to be formed on the first and second floor above the shop, in lieu of the current arrangement of having this flat extending at ground floor.

The existing single storey store building at the side of the shop (adjacent to 31A Station Road) is to be demolished and a new larger store constructed, which will have a flat roof.

The proposal also involves the construction of a layby for three cars opposite the site which will occupy much of the verge on this side of the road.

The site is in the urban area and Policies SHDEV6, DES8 and TRANS10 are applicable as contained in the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 (EDLP).

The main issues are the impact on highway safety and impact on the character of the area and adjacent properties.

Impact on highway safety

The proposal will entail a further 46 sq metres of retail floor space (a 48% increase over existing) with the conversion of the existing ground floor residential accommodation, and the proposed store will increase storage space by 17 sq metres (a 55% increase over the existing store).

The additional floor space would allow greater circulation space in the shop and for more stock to be kept at the site. The application states that maintaining greater levels of stock will involve larger deliveries, but these would be larger quantities of the same goods from the same suppliers, and there would be no increase in the number of deliveries. The applicant’s agent has stated that the delivery vehicles could be larger, although this is not anticipated.

The site has some problems with parking associated with the shop, and it has been reported by local people that at some times of the day, numerous vehicles (including larger vehicles such as lorries and vans) are parked outside the shop and along both sides of Station road in the immediate vicinity of the site. This narrows the carriageway and can give rise to congestion, especially at delivery times.

Vehicles have in the past parked on the grass verge opposite the site, but this occurrence has been reduced by the Parish Council’s positioning of planters on the verge that dissuade vehicles parking here. The proposed layby appears to require the relocation of these planters.

The new layby would provide space for three cars, or less spaces for vans and lorries. This would be funded by the applicant and be undertaken by Dorset County Council. The layby would have a footway between it and the field hedge to the south east and this would join the existing footway.

Dorset County Council Highways has assessed the impact of the proposal and has raised no objection, subject to a condition requiring the layby to be constructed before the use of the development.

The existing site has five parking spaces on its frontage and the layby would effectively add a further three spaces. The spaces in the layby would not be able to be controlled by the Council or highway authority, and would be available for any vehicle to use.

This would have the benefit of providing parking for three cars to park off the road, and the existing parking situation is not expected to worsen as a result of the proposal.

The additional retail and storage area proposed will allow greater levels of stock to be held at the site, but the type of goods and their supplier would not change. Given this situation, it is not anticipated to lead to a significant increase in traffic movements to and from the site, and given the proposed layby which will allow additional off-street parking, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its likely impact on highway safety.

The shop is located in a large village, and serves a large number of local people who live within walking distance of the shop. This location is considered sustainable and additional off-street parking is not considered necessary, as many customers would not need a car to access the shop.

The proposal is considered to comply with Policy TRANS10 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 as it will provide an adequate level of off-road parking.

Impact on the character of the area and adjacent properties

The external appearance of the shop and dwelling will not be altered by the proposal, and no impact on the character of the area or adjacent properties will occur from this part of the proposal.

The new store building will replace the existing part timber clad single storey flat roofed store at the side of the shop. This new building will project further towards the road than the existing (by 4m), and would be level with the front of the shop.

The store would have rendered cavity walls and come closer to the boundary with 31A Station Road than the existing store. A flat roof is proposed which will be 300mm taller than the existing roof where it is closest to this boundary. The existing store has a monopitch roof, which pitches away from the boundary. The design and scale of building is considered acceptable for this location.

Although part of the roof next to the boundary will increase in height and the new building will be closer to the boundary, this impact is unlikely to be significant, and no adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of 31A Station Road is expected.

The closer proximity of the new store to the boundary with 31A Station Road will require the removal of the section of hedge alongside the building and this would be replaced with an 1800mm tall fence. The hedge at the front of the building which abuts the footway will be retained.

The new store building would obscure views of this hedge from the south west and its loss would not have a visual impact from this direction. The new fence would be viewed from the north east, but this will lessen the impact of the building and the fence would be set well back from the road. The retention of the front section of hedge will provide some softening of the building and prevent any significant impact on the street scene.

For the reasons above, the proposed alterations to the shop and the new store are not expected to have an adverse impact on the character of the immediate area.

The layby will introduce additional hard surfacing to the street scene, and greatly reduce the width of the grass verge opposite the shop. However, in the context of the area as a whole, this is only a small area, and the benefit of providing additional off-street parking will outweigh this impact.

The displaced planters could be repositioned and continue to contribute to the visual amenity of the area.

No significant impact on the street scene is therefore expected from the creation of the proposed layby.

The proposal complies with Policy SHDEV6 of the EDLP as it represents a small scale shopping facility designed to meet the needs of the immediate locality and is located in an urban area as identified in the EDLP.

Conclusion

The proposal is considered to comply with relevant policy contained in the EDLP and is acceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety and the character of the immediate area.

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan received 26.4.2012

R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 11.24.2: Proposed Plans and Elevations rec'd 5.3.2012

R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 11.24.4: Proposed Upper Floor Plans rec'd 5.3.2012

R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 11.24.5: Proposed Layby rec'd 5.3.2012

R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 11.24.3: Re-build existing store existing and proposed plans and elevations rec'd 5.3.2012

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 Prior to the additional retail floor space being brought into use, the highway lay-by indicated on R Wilkinson Arch and Building Services Drawing Number 11.24.5 dated 2.11.2012 shall be constructed to a detailed design and specification which shall have been previously submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

4 The materials and finishes to be used for the external faces of the new store building hereby permitted shall be white painted render for the walls and grey felt for the roof unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing, and minimise the visual impact of the store on the street scene and adjacent property at 31a Station Road.

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 35

kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council's Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. They can be contacted by telephone at Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

2 The applicant(s) is (are) advised that the proposed development is situated in close proximity to the property boundary and "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996" is therefore likely to apply. An explanatory booklet relating to this Act is available free of charge from The DoE Publications Despatch Centre, Blackhorse Road, London SE99 6TT. Tel 0181 691 9191 (fax 0181 694 0099). Alternatively, copies of the booklet may be available from the District Council (subject to availability).

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/12/0394/HOU

Proposal: Raise roof with dormer window to side to create 2 bedrooms, bathroom & utility room in roofspace

Site Address: 43 Gallows Drive, West Parley, Ferndown, for Mr Mark Smalley

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 15 July 2012 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 5 July 2012

West Parley Parish Object Council Comments: The Parish Council feel that this is an over large extension for the plot, which intrudes neighbouring properties and would restrict light.

Consultee Responses:

Neighbour Comments:

A D Muchmore 2 Oak Close, We understand the need for additional bedrooms, but West Parley this will mean for us a loss of privacy and considerable loss of light in the majority of our living rooms, all of which overlook the rear garden.

If this proposal is passed in its current format, especially with the considerable and in our view excessive increase to the height of the roof, then quite where that leaves us in the latter part of our lives I find hard to contemplate.

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the Parish Council comments are at variance with the officer recommendation.

No.43 Gallows Drive is a bungalow. The land previously formed part of the rear gardens of the houses to the south which front Christchurch Road. Planning permission was granted under reference 3/81/2197 on 4 December 1981.

These houses (nos. 189, 191 and 193 Christchurch Road) are at a higher level than the application site, but are far enough away (20 – 30m) not to be affected by this proposal.

Two bedrooms, a bathroom and a utility room are proposed in the new roof space which will be increased in height from 4.9 metres to 6.6 metres. Five rooflights and a dormer with an obscure glazed window are proposed in the north elevation facing Oak Close and two high level rooflights in the south elevation facing Christchurch Road. The bottom of the rooflights are 2.5 metres above floor level thereby avoiding any overlooking of adjacent properties. There is a bedroom window in each gable end.

The main impact of this proposal will be upon the living conditions of No.2 Oak Close which is a bungalow. It lies on the north side of the application site. There is no doubt that the steeper pitched, and higher, roof will be more visible than the existing. It is also recognised that the distance between the properties is 10 metres with the rear garden of No.2 having a depth of 7 metres and that the new roof is to the south.

However, the greater impact will not be so significant that a refusal of planning permission would be warranted.

A negative bat report was submitted with the application.

This proposal satisfies the general development criteria which are set out in policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

The representations of the neighbour and the Parish Council have been carefully considered in assessing the merits of this application.

There is a favourable recommendation.

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 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans : drawings nos. M.S..001 : 002 and 003.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

4 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the dormer window at first floor level in the north elevation of the roof shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking.

Reason : To preserve the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/12/0451/COU

Proposal: Use of Part of Existing Barn/Outbuilding as Holiday Accommodation

Site Address: Preston, 62 Ham Lane, Ferndown, for Mr M Farmer

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Green Belt LP Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Site Notice exp: 6 July 2012 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 21 June 2012

Ferndown Town Council Objection on planning grounds stated below: Comments: Unacceptable development within the Green Belt. Outside village envelope. No details provided on business development should the property be used as holiday accommodation e.g. need identified etc.

Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION Development Liaison Officer to the proposal.

EDDC Tree Section There are no trees of significance that would be adversely affected should planning permission be granted. I therefore have no arboricultural objections.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs Johnson 66 Ham Summary of letter received 19.6.12 Lane, Ferndown Object Agricultural Building on Green Belt Site Regulations 1940s, early 1950s The proposed development falls outside the Village Envelope Plan Drainage Bats As the site is in the Green Belt Area, we are opposed to any non-agricultural development on this green-belt site. Mrs Senior 70 Ham Lane, Summary of letter received 2 July 2012: Ferndown Whilst I have no objection to Mr Farmers family seeking another use for the barn, these ideas would seriously affect the privacy of my upper garden and look irresponsible if my children, or others, were seen playing so close to many strangers. Mrs A C Harding 58 Ham I would like to see the barn developed into a lovely Lane, Ferndown building. The grounds that it is situated in are kept beautifully, then there is the barn which is an eyesore.

It could be lovely with its backdrop of the existing trees.

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval and the Town Council has objected.

The proposal is to convert part of the existing detached outbuilding at the rear of the dwelling known as Preston to holiday accommodation. Vehicular access to the building will be via the existing drive that runs past the bungalow at Preston and joins Ham Lane, and on-site car parking will be provided to the south east of the building.

The external works to undertake the conversion will involve removing the existing asbestos sheet roofing and replacing this with plain clay tiles, and rendering the lower section of the walls, with wavey edged timber cladding for the remaining parts of the walls. Replacing of the existing metal casement windows with timber casement windows is also proposed with installation of front and rear doors.

The internal works will involve a new floor, waterproofing the walls with bitumen, and new timber framed internal structure with studwork partitions to allow the formation of the rooms.

The existing steel roof trusses are to remain, and there will be no increase in size of the building.

Relevant planning history

The application follows a refusal of planning permission for a proposal to raise part of the roof of the building and provide two floors of accommodation to create a new dwelling (reference 3/11/0926) in January 2012. It was refused under delegated powers as it represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and would have a materially greater impact than the existing building on the Green Belt.

That former proposal was considered to result in a building that was quite different in character to the existing building and would not be in keeping with the rural area. The works required for the development were considered to amount to major reconstruction and the application was not supported by evidence to demonstrate that the building was unsuitable for employment, tourism or recreational uses. Consequently, the application was contrary to Policy CSIDE2 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 and also the advice set out in Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (PPG2).

The advent of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) has made PPG2 redundant, and this advice can no longer be used. However relevant policy relating to the Green Belt is contained in paragraph 90 of the NPPF, and this, and the requirements of Policy CSIDE2 are now applicable to the conversion.

The main issues are the impact on the Green Belt and countryside and impact on the amenities of the occupants of adjacent dwellings.

Impact on the Green Belt and countryside

The existing building may reasonably be described as of permanent and substantial construction, and therefore as a re-use of a building, the proposal is considered to conform to paragraph 90 of the NPPF.

The current proposal intends holiday accommodation which is a tourism use, and therefore the principle of the use is acceptable in terms of Policy CSIDE2. The design proposed will result in a building that would be in keeping with the rural area, and the works proposed to carry out the conversion are not considered to represent major or complete reconstruction. The building is also expected to last for many years with normal repair and maintenance.

The proposed external alterations will not result in loss of character of the building, and will improve its appearance. No open storage will be required by the proposed use, and parking in the open is unlikely to be materially altered, given the single unit proposed.

Traffic likely to be generated by the proposal will use the existing private track that joins Ham Lane, and the proposal will not rely on rural roads. No adverse impact on Ham Lane should result from the proposal’s traffic generation.

The building to be converted is large and can be used as an ample sized holiday let without the need for any extension.

The proposal therefore meets the terms of Policy CSIDE2 of the EDLP.

Impact on the amenities of the occupants of adjacent dwellings

The building to be converted lies a good distance from neighbouring dwellings, and no significant impact from it on adjacent dwellings is expected accordingly. There may be some overlooking of the rear section of the rear garden of 70 Ham Lane, but this would not adversely impinge on the amenity of the occupants of this dwelling in planning terms, given the distance of some 80m from the nearest part of the application building and the rear of No.70.

The additional use of the existing drive that serves the application site may have some impact on the amenities of 60 Ham Lane. However, the additional traffic movements are unlikely to be significant and no adverse impact is expected for the occupiers of this property.

Drainage

The proposal was originally to use a septic tank for foul drainage, which would not have been acceptable under Circular 3/99: Planning requirement in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage incorporating septic tanks in New Development.

However the applicant has now proposed a package sewage treatment plant, which is considered acceptable, and accords with this Circular. An appropriate condition has been suggested.

Impact on bats

The application includes a negative bat report that accords with the Dorset Bat Protocol, and there is no need to consider this issue further.

Impact on protected heathland

The proposal is for a holiday unit, and Natural England does not require a contribution for this use in terms of the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006 - 2014. There is therefore no requirement for mitigation in conjunction with this Framework.

Impact on transport infrastructure

As the existing use of the site is anticipated to generate a similar number of vehicle trips as the proposed use, Dorset County Council has advised that no contribution is necessary under the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2010.

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan received 17.5.2012

Drawing No. 2011 06A: Block Plan received 17.5.2012

Drawing No. 2011 03A: Proposed Elevations received 17.5.2012

Drawing No. 2011 02A: Proposed Floor Plan received 17.5.2012

Drawing No. 2011 04A: Proposed section received 17.5.2012

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

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

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

4 The holiday accommodation hereby approved shall be occupied for holiday purposes only, and not as a person's sole, or main place of residence. The owners of the site shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of the occupiers and their home address and shall make this information available at all reasonable times upon request to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the accommodation remains as holiday accommodation as an unrestricted dwelling would be contrary to planning policy in this location.

5 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the planting or fencing of the site's north west boundary 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 any fencing shall be erected prior to the occupation of the holiday accommodation, and 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 BS5837:2012 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

6 The development hereby permitted shall be connected to a package sewage treatment plant prior to occupation of the holiday unit, details of which shall have been previously submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide an appropriate method of foul drainage for the development.

Informatives:

1 Regard was had to the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework in the determination of the application.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/12/0502/FUL

Proposal: Block Up Large First Floor Roller Shutter Door Opening and Create New Smaller Roller Shutter Door Opening on South- West Elevation of Existing Unit (Retrospective)

Site Address: Unit 19, Bessemer Close, Verwood, for Wilbur C/o Adrian Wilkes Ltd

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Employment Infilling Area LP Environment Agency Flood Zones Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area Adjoining Authority Consultation Zone NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 5 July 2012 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 20 June 2012

Verwood Town Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION Development Liaison Officer to the proposal.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs P Few 3 Ebblake Object Close, Verwood The property in question is a large industrial unit which has recently been updated by the owner of the premises. Whilst doing the renovations they have taken it upon themselves to add a large roller door on the west side of the premises. Behind the door is a suspended floor in which people can stand. Our objection with this is that when people are up on the platform they look directly into the rear of our property and into our seven year old daughter's bedroom. This obviously is a breach of our privacy as the whole of the rear is now exposed to whoever stands upon the platform. Our other concern is the noise factor, in order to reach such heights a forklift truck or other lifting equipment will be needed therefore increasing the noise pollution We have recently placed our property on the market; the feedback we are getting from our Estate Agents is that all of the prospective purchasers are impressed with the property however they have concerns about the large opening overlooking our property and garden. If you were to grant this retrospective planning application this would have a detrimental impact on the saleability of our property and possible

valuation. We would like to point out that this opening did not exist when we purchased this property. On a separate note, we understand the large covered area directly adjoining our rear garden also does not have planning permission , this clearly indicates to us the owners has complete disregard for the council's planning policies and planning law. We would ask that this retrospective application from the owners is rejected as we believe it could have a serious and detrimental effect on our quality of life and value to our property detailed in the reasons already outlined above. We have attached photographs of the industrial unit and large roller door from our daughter’s bedroom. Clifford Westerman Object 5 Ebblake Close, Verwood The property in question is a large industrial unit which has recently been updated by the owner of the premises. Whilst doing the renovations they have taken it upon themselves to add a large roller door on the west side of the premises. Behind the door is a suspended floor in which people can stand. My objection with this is that when people are up on the platform they look directly into the rear of my property. My other concern is the noise factor, as in order to reach such heights a forklift truck or other lifting equipment will be needed therefore increasing the noise pollution for us to endure. Please could I ask that this retrospective application from the owners is rejected as I believe it could have a detrimental effect on my quality of life through the reasons already outlined above. L Fitzpatrick 83 Liederbach Object Drive, Verwood The property in question is a large industrial unit which has recently been updated by the owner of the premises. Whilst doing the renovations they have taken it upon themselves to add a large roller door on the west side of the premises. Behind the door is a suspended floor in which people can stand. My objection with this is that when people are up on the platform they look directly into the rear of my property. My other concern is the noise factor, as in order to reach such heights a forklift truck or other lifting equipment will be needed therefore increasing the noise pollution for us to endure. Please could I ask that this retrospective application from the owners is rejected as I believe it could have a detrimental effect on my quality of life through the reasons already outlined above. Russell O'Hagan 85 Object Liederbach Drive, Verwood The property in question is a large industrial unit

which has recently been updated by the owner of the premises. Whilst doing the renovations they have taken it upon themselves to add a large roller door on the west side of the premises. Behind the door is a suspended floor in which people can stand. My objection with this is that when people are up on the platform they look directly into the rear of my property. My other concern is the noise factor, as in order to reach such heights a forklift truck or other lifting equipment will be needed therefore increasing the noise pollution for us to endure. Please could I ask that this retrospective application from the owners is rejected as I believe it could have a detrimental effect on my quality of life through the reasons already outlined above. M A Lane 77 Liederbach Object Drive, Verwood The property in question is a large industrial unit which has recently been updated by the owner of the premises. Whilst doing the renovations they have taken it upon themselves to add a large roller door on the west side of the premises. Behind the door is a suspended floor in which people can stand. My objection with this is that when people are up on the platform they look directly into the rear of my property. My other concern is the noise factor, as in order to reach such heights a forklift truck or other lifting equipment will be needed therefore increasing the noise pollution for us to endure. Please could I ask that this retrospective application from the owners is rejected as I believe it could have a detrimental effect on my quality of life through the reasons already outlined above. Ruth Robertson & Another Object 75 Liederbach Drive, The property in question is a large industrial unit Verwood which has recently been updated by the owner of the premises. Whilst doing the renovations they have taken it upon themselves to add a large roller door on the west side of the premises. Behind the door is a suspended floor in which people can stand. My objection with this is that when people are up on the platform they look directly into the rear of my property. My other concern is the noise factor, as in order to reach such heights a forklift truck or other lifting equipment will be needed therefore increasing the noise pollution for us to endure. Please could I ask that this retrospective application from the owners is rejected as I believe it could have a detrimental effect on my quality of life through the reasons already outlined above.

Officers Report:

The application is brought to Committee as there are five letters of objection and the officer recommendation is one of approval.

The application site comprises an industrial unit on Bessemer Close which is situated to the south west of the Ebblake Industrial Estate, Verwood. To the immediate west are residential properties. The industrial unit was formerly occupied by ‘Wessex Doors’ but is currently vacant. The unit previously had a large roller shutter door at first floor level on the south west elevation to enable loading of lorries; this faced towards the rear gardens of residential properties on Liederbach Drive and Ebblake Close.

The application seeks permission to block up the loading door at first floor level on the south west elevation of the building and to form a new, smaller loading door at first floor on the same elevation. The works have already been undertaken and the application is made in retrospect; in such cases the application must be judged on its own merits against the development plan.

Five letters of objection have been received from residents of Leiderbach Drive and Ebblake Close who are concerned at overlooking and noise. The distance from the loading door to the rear windows of the properties on Liederbach Drive is over 20m, this distance increases to 27m to the rear windows properties on Ebblake Close.

The agents advise that the new, smaller loading door is normally shut, other than when loading takes place and only during normal working hours. The door is unlikely to cause an increase in overlooking, or noise over and above that previously experienced from the original larger door, albeit in a different position.

Given the above facts and the distances involved, an objection to the scheme could not be sustained. The proposal meets Policy DES8 of the EDLP.

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

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

4787/1A.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Informatives:

1 In assessing this proposal the local planning authority has had regard to the guidance contained within the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/12/0557/FUL

Proposal: Proposed Sports Hall and Ancillary Facilities

Site Address: Verwood CEVA Middle School , Howe Lane, Verwood, for

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Community Use Area LP Core Strategy Pre- Green Belt LP Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Open Space Open Space Urban Areas LP

Site Notice exp: 19 July 2012 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 16 July 2012

Verwood Town Council No objection Comments: Strongly suggest a full traffic management plan during construction and a car park management plan as a condition if approval was given.

Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, Development Liaison Officer subject to condition.

Note to Case Officer:- It is suggested that a parking management plan is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to ensure the surrounding roads are not adversely affected.

EDDC Tree Section 19/07/12 Should the sport hall be erected where currently proposed it would result in the loss a mature Oak that makes a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the area. It also has the potential to have an adverse impact on two further Oaks, both of which are prominent specimens within the site. This proposal is therefore contrary to policies DES7 and DES8 and I recommend that the current scheme is refused.

However, my concerns could easily be overcome should the sports hall be moved further into the site, thereby ensuring that these prominent trees are

retained and not unnecessarily removed.

Therefore, before I provide you with any further comments, please request that the above is given further consideration.

23/07/12 Whilst I still recommend that this proposal is refused, should you be minded to approve it please impose a condition to ensure trees are protected during development.

Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

The application is brought to the Planning Committee for determination as the application has been submitted by the Verwood CEVA Emmanuel Middle School in partnership with East Dorset District Council.

Site Description Verwood CEVA Emmanuel Middle School is located to the south of Verwood. The school and the adjacent Verwood CE First School are serviced by a large parking area.

To the east of the Emmanuel Middle School is a level, fenced playground boarded by a number of mature trees. In front of the playground is a cycle compound. To the north of the school and adjoining the car park is a level area of land laid to grass.

Proposal The proposal is to construct a new sports hall on the playground to the east of the school. The proposed sports hall building is 18.5.0m by 34.5.0m, and 9.3m height to the apex of the roof, this will be built in a contemporary style finished in aluminium cladding with a modular roof system.

The sports hall will provide a multiuse space for indoor sports including four badminton courts and will be serviced by changing rooms and reception facilities. Two studio areas are provided at first floor above the service area, these are to be used as multifunctional spaces for teaching and community use.

A car park will be provided on the grass area to the north of the school, this will provide 13 new parking spaces and allow the cycle compound to be located.

Considerations The key issues for consideration are (i) The principle of development, (ii) The impact of development on the character of the area, (iii) The impact on trees; and (iv) Parking and highway safety.

(i) Principle of development The proposed sports hall is to be used for school and community use and is located within the urban area where new development is acceptable in principle subject to

normal planning considerations. The sports hall is to be constructed adjoining two existing schools and will provide a much needed undercover sporting facility and two studio classrooms for use by the school and wider community. Such sporting facilities should be supported.

(ii) The impact of development on the character of the area The sports hall is by its very nature a relatively large building. However the position of the building next to the existing school will ensure that the built form is read against the backdrop of existing buildings. In this respect the proposal will not adversely affect the character of the area or openness of the Green Belt to the south. Furthermore the location ensures there is no loss of amenity to local residential properties.

The proposed sports hall has a contemporary design which mirrors some of the more recent buildings on the school site, in these respects the proposal is acceptable in design terms and meets Policy DES8 of the EDLP.

(iii) The Impact on Trees The applicant has provided an arboricultural method statement that demonstrates that a number of trees will be retained. However, a large oak to the east of the sports hall building is to be felled. The Council’s Tree Officer objects to the loss of the tree, a suggestion has been made to the applicant to move the sports hall further south to allow the tree to be retained.

The applicant’s agent has considered the tree officer’s request to move the building; but due to the position of existing drainage pipes and on the basis that the change would lead to the loss of a play group to the rear, the Committee is requested to consider the scheme on the basis of the submitted drawing.

Whilst the loss of the tree is regrettable, given the wider on site constraints and community benefit of the project the loss of the tree, on balance, is accepted in this particular instance.

(iv) Parking and Highway Safety The Highways Authority has been consulted and raises no objection subject to a parking management plan being agreed and implemented to ensure that cars do not overspill onto nearby residential areas

The car park is currently at capacity during school opening hours, at this time the sports hall will be used by pupils of the school. In the evenings when car parking spaces are available the sports hall will be available for wider community use. Ultimately it will be for the sports hall operator and school to manage parking and encourage walking and cycling. The applicants are aware that parking needs to be properly managed, and has agreed to put together a parking management plan; this will be secured by condition to meet Policy TRANS 10 of the EDLP.

The applicants have provided a Construction Management Plan to ensure development is properly managed; this will be subject to a separate condition.

Summary The proposed sports hall will provide much need sporting facilities for both the school and wider community of Verwood. The proposal meets development plan policy and 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

4196/03 Location Plan

4228/100 Ground Floor Plan 4228/101 First Floor Plan 4228/102 Front Elevation 4228/103 Side 1 Elevation 4228/104 Rear Elevation 4228/105 Side 2 Elevation 4228/106B External Perspectives 4228/107B Site Plan 4228/108B Proposed Staff Car Park 4228/109 Sports Hall and Parking 4228/110 4228/111B Internal Perspectives Tree Survey - Arboricultural Method Statement Construction Traffic Management Plan Design and Access Statement

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Longspan KS1000 LS Long Spanning Wall System Secret Fix SF 500 Roofing

3 The building shall be constructed in accordance with the schedule of materials set out in section 9 of the planning application form, or as otherwise varies in writing with the local planning authority.

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

4 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of demolition or development, a pre-commencement site meeting

between the Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees on site in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by Treecall Consulting, ref: DS/37412 and dated the 11th June 2012. The protection of the trees on site shall be carried out in accordance with this report and this condition shall not be discharged before an arboricultural supervision statement is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

Reason: In order that trees are protected during development.

5 Prior to the building being brought into operational use a parking management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in conjunction with the Highways Authority. The approved parking amendment plans shall then be implemented in accordance with the details agreed.

Reason: In order that ensure that parking is properly managed to ensure the surrounding roads are not adversely affected by overspill parking

6 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the cycle parking facilities have been constructed for which details will need to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

7 Works shall proceed in accordance with the Construction Management Plan submitted with the application, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the construction phase of the development is properly managed.

Informatives:

1 In assessing this proposal the local planning authority has had regard to the guidance contained within the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/12/0580/HOU

Proposal: Single Storey Extensions to Rear and Side Elevations

Site Address: 9 Ashley Drive West, Ashley Heath, Ringwood, for Mr T Davis

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 3 August 2012 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 July 2012

St Leonards And St Ives The comments of the Parish Council are awaited. Parish Council Comments:

Consultee Responses:

Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

The application is brought to the Committee as the applicant is a member of staff.

The property comprises a bungalow with detached garage, located within a residential area. The detached garage is separated from the bungalow by a narrow passageway; the roofspace of the property has previously been converted to habitable accommodation lit by a rooflight to the front, and box dormer to the rear.

It is proposed to extend the garage to include passageway. To the rear an existing extension will be removed and a new extension formed along the full width of the house, this will project 2.5m. The new rooms will be lit be feature glazing and a lantern light above. A new chimney will be also added, this will be finished in render.

The extensions and alterations are of a contemporary style and are appropriate and sympathetic in terms of their size, scale and design. The proposals will complement the existing property and not detract from the character of the residential area. In terms of amenity the proposal are well considered and will not adversely affect the neighbouring properties by way of loss of light or overlooking.

At the time of writing no objections have been raised by neighbours; the Parish Council has been informed and their views are awaited.

The scheme meets Policy DES8 of the EDLP and subject no objection from the Parish Council a favourable recommendation is given.

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

R176

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

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

Informatives:

1 In assessing this proposal the local planning authority has had regard to the guidance contained within the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Policy Considerations and Reasons

3. IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Plan & Council Objectives 3.1. To ensure East Dorset’s natural and built environment is well managed.

Legal 3.2. The Council is the Local Planning Authority and has delegated to the Planning Committee the responsibility for determining planning applications in accordance with the provisions of the Local Plan, statutory and non-statutory guidance in the form of legislation and Planning Policy Statements.

Environmental 3.3. Any issues are contained within the body of this report.

Financial and Risk 3.4. The risk implications relate to the potential for judicial review or maladministration if the applications being reported have not been considered properly in a procedural sense or there is a substantial flaw in the consideration.

Equalities 3.5. Planning application determination requires a positive and questioning approach by the decision maker to equality matters. Where a particular issue requires a focused consideration there will be a reference in the particular report.

Background Papers: Planning application files relating to the above applications.