East Dorset District Council Planning Committee 9Th October, 2007

Everyone 7 128 1391 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 1 0 57 rep_exe_IDsNo No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No NoENV1 09/10/ 2007 09:30: 30 Chi ef E xec uti ve Ol d 52 1

East Dorset District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Item No 6 9th October, 2007 Public Report

Schedule of Planning Applications

Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.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

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

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

3. Equalities Implications 3.1 There are no implications associated with this report.

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

5. Application Schedule 5.1 No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/07/0929/FUL 20 Matchams Close, Matchams, Ringwood 2 2. 3/07/0962/FUL 72 Middlehill Road, Colehill, Wimborne 4 3. 3/07/0967/FUL Sturminster Marshall Memorial Hall, Churchill Close, 16 Sturminster Marshall 4. 3/07/1005/FUL John Browns Garden Centre, Ringwood Road, Three 18 Legged Cross 5. 3/07/1007/OUT C/O Parkway And Station Road, 126 Station Road, West 21 Moors 6. 3/07/1016/FUL 22 Lone Pine Drive, West Parley, Ferndown 24 7. 3/07/1019/FUL Land Adj 2 Pye Close, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 27 8. 3/07/1101/FUL Wolvercroft Spinney, Alderholt, Fordingbridge 29 9. 3/07/1150/COU Little Hill Farm, Ringwood Road, St Leonards 32 10. 3/07/1152/FUL Pear Tree Cottage, Sandleheath Road, Alderholt 34 11. 3/07/1169/FUL Broomhill Methodist Church, Colehill Lane, Broomhill 36

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/07/0929/FUL

Proposal: Retain Raised Level of Part of Garden and Decking and Boundary Fence (Retrospective)

Site Address: 20 Matchams Close, Matchams, Ringwood, for Mr And Mrs Booth

Constraints Area of Great Landscape Value LP Article 4 Directions Airport Safeguarding (All) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 14 September 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

St Leonards And St Ives Parish Objection: Council Comments: Unneighbourly Spoils the visual amenity of the neighbouring property Fixing structure of the fence is facing the neighbouring property Excessive height when viewed from the other side Was planning permission given for the decking_ The photographs submitted with the application do not give a full picture of the resultant affect on the neighbouring property

Consultee Responses:

Neighbour Comments:

Mr And Mrs Baldock Residence of 21 Matchams Close. C/o Ms Mather King, 14 Purewell Object Loss of Privacy Contrary to Policy Affects the Character of the Area.

Mr And Mrs Brown No Objection 22 Matchams Close, Matchams

S. Birchmore And J. Howchin Work has been done to a very high standard and 19 Matchams Close, Matchams usablility of garden has improved.

M And S Baldock Object: 21 Matchams Close, Matchams Conservation area

John Bryan Object: 14 Matchams Close, Ringwood, Safety issue as high winds Dorset Does not blend with the existing fences

Officers Report:

The application comes to Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor.

Site Description

Matchams Close is a recent development of detached dwellings with an extensive planning history permitted in the Green Belt. The estate falls from the west to the east resulting in significant differences in the building platform levels and corresponding differences in garden levels. Due to the proximity of Matchams Stadium an earth sound berm was constructed at the southern curtilage of the estate as required by the original planning permission. The estate is washed over by the Green Belt and is within an Area of Great Landscape Value. The plot subject to this retrospective application is on the north west portion of the site. The rearmost part of the back garden of Number 20 drops suddenly by more than two metres to the rear boundary, where it abuts a private access serving a flat conversion known as 242 to 252 Hurn Road. Beyond this area is the southern part of the Avon Forest Park. A dense growth of rhododendron and deciduous woodland prevents distant views from the rear gardens. A condition appended to the permission removes permitted development rights. The rear boundary treatment comprises a 1.5 metre retaining wall topped by a 1.8m fence. The original landscaping scheme shows this banking planted with Portuguese Laurel but no further details are shown.

Proposed Development

The rear garden of Number 20 appears to be partly levelled and has been extended at the same level north westwards in timber decking towards the rear boundary where it is contained by a 1.8m close boarded fence, measuring upwards from the decking surface. This new fencing extends along the rear boundary and along approximately 15 metres of the common boundary with Number 21. The rear boundary fencing follows the level of the common boundary with Number 19 and continues round to pick up the common boundary with Number 21.

The decking and fencing appears to be supported by a timber substructure that is not immediately visible. From the rear garden of Number 21 the new fence is taller than the existing fencing, but not to a visually obtrusive degree. The differences in height only become significant after it passes behind the garden room against the common boundary and only markedly so in the last three metres of run. This last part is shielded by the garden room and may actually improve its seclusion. The works are not considered to significantly impact upon the amenities of Number 19 and a letter of support has been received from the occupiers.

From the private access at the rear the proposal appears visually prominent, with the support posts and arris rails giving a utilitarian appearance. This is worsened by the fencing being visible above the original rear boundary for most of its length, and the manner in which the superimposed works visually contrast with the natural fall of the site, giving the appearance of a timber fortification from the access to the rear flat conversion.

Summary

The relevant policies in the Local Plan are therefore DES8 and LSCON2. In terms of its effect upon the adjoining occupiers, the proposal will not impact upon the amenities of Number 19 due to that property’s higher platform and the intervening fencing. Regarding Number 21 the changes in level of the fencing are not incompatible with the surrounding area

3 in terms of its height and bulk for most of its rearwards run, and only become significant where it passes behind the garden room where the banking drops suddenly. For this reason the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its effect upon the adjacent occupiers.

Addressing the effect upon the amenity of areas to the north west, although the extensive planting immediately to the north west reduces any impact upon more distant views, the structure appears as an oppressive functional structure when viewed from the access to the flatted development and the adjoining more public areas. Given the overall impact of this development upon the openness of the overwashing Green Belt the accretional additional impact of the proposal is not considered significant. Although the utilitarian appearance could be marginally improved by cladding the structural parts this would not overcome its failure to accord with Policy DES8 due to its height, materials and visual impact when viewed from the public areas to the north and north west.

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

Reasons:-

1 Due to its excessive height, scale and visual impact when viewed from the public areas to the north and west the fencing on the north west rear boundary of the property appears oppressive and fails to harmonise with the general character of the area and its natural topography all contrary to Policy DES8 of the Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8 LSCON2

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/07/0962/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Existing Dwelling and Erect Block of 14 Flats with 21 Space Car Park at First Floor, Together with Revised Access and 7 Parking Spaces to Front and Side.

Site Address: 72 Middlehill Road, Colehill, Wimborne, for Matthew Builders And Developers Ltd And Infra-Search Ltd

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 24 August 2007 Advert expired: 24 August 2007 Nbr-Nfn expired: 21 August 2007

Colehill Parish Council Comments: Objection: Considerable impact on street scene Increase in Traffic Over Development.

Consultee Responses:

Wimborne Civic Society Objection: Out of keeping

County Highways Development Liaison Recommended amendments Officer

EDDC Design And Conservation The impact of the proposed block would be damaging to the landscape character of Colehill, when viewed from the Stour Valley. Although Colehill is extensively developed, most of these developments, which comprise low rise suburban houses and bungalows, are concealed by trees, thus giving a strong wooded backdrop to the valley. These southern slopes represent an important and highly distinctive landscape feature.

The height and bulk of the proposed block, compounded by its bold form, would introduce a prominent feature on the hillside that would significantly impact on its character. Equally important, the flatted scheme would begin to re define the areas character. Its impact would be made worse by the proposed blue roof and the proposed extensive use of glass. None of the photographs in the design and access statement show these important views.

The design of the proposed building is more appropriate to a city location or perhaps in association with other urban flatted schemes closer to the sea. Contrary to the design and access statements view, the area is not in need of a landmark flats development to give it lift. The reference points are more subtle than that, such as the various schools St Michaels Church the parade of shops and the post office.

Given the size and prominence of the proposed development, even a building of superlative design would appear inappropriate. This scheme is not. Neither can it be regarded as being good design as it disregards the amenities of its neighbours and because it would be a conspicuous and incongruous feature in the wider landscape.

The artist impressions contained in the design and access statement give a simplistic visualisation of the proposed block. Even the elevation plans show a remarkable lack of detail. Despite the thickness of the design and access document, there is little explanation of the proposed materials or key elements of detail.

EDDC Tree Section The trees of greatest importance on this site are 5 those mature specimens that flank the highway. Other vegetation of significance within the site includes the established conifer screening on the east and west boundaries and the dense group planting that affords a degree of screening on the southern boundary.

I have some concerns with regards to this proposal.

Bridge specification Car Parking and Bin Store Facilitation Pruning Screening on West boundary Screening on East Boundary Storage and space for construction activities

Wessex Water Services Ltd Engineers Comments received 3rd September 2007

Neighbour Comments:

A.J Gooch Intrusive impact on neighbours 74 Middlehill Road, Colehill 7 storey building is too high and out of the character with the area Dangerous- pedestrian and car uses Traffic concerns Character area is being ignored Comments made in the report are incorrect and totally unjustified

Tom Maddern Out of character Pednvounder, 113 Middlehill Road Clearly visible on the Colehill skyline Height and bulk is overpowering Insufficient car parking Risk to pedestrians and vehicles Wasteful on building resources Reduces amenities for buildings around it Inadequate outdoor drying facilities Submitted plans are misleading Utility issues not fully considered or resolved No allocated space on site for composting of suitable waste

Mr And Mrs Goddard Not in keeping with Colehill and is better suited to 1 Quarry Road, Wimborne Sandbanks Trees are not all around also, trees do not have leaves all year around so we will have to look at it Due to it being made out of glass, it will be lit like a Xmas tree and will always be seen Traffic concerns Parking concerns

Janet Marden Object

6 16 Stroud Close, Colehill Traffic Out of Character Overdevelopment Size and Height

J Jackson Object 16 Ashmeads Way, Colehill Out of keeping Traffic / Access issues.

J Brown Object 15 Stroud Close, Colehill Traffic Overlooking

Mr And Mrs Ford Object 28 Ashmeads Way, Colehill Out of keeping Noise from the integral garage Traffic/ Parking

Frederick and Sheila Gray 1) Proposed building completely out of character with 17 Stroud Close, Colehill all other properties within the locality 2) Height of building would be obtrusive and adversely affect the tree skyline 3) Unacceptable to have the additional traffic movements and attendant noise brought about by (a) number of cars associated with the 28 car parking facility and (b) delivery, visitors' and other vehicles accessing the flats, on an already busy Middlehill Road and opposite a school for younger children 4) Existing residences would be overlooked by flat dwellers to an intolerable level 5) Reflected sunlight from the large amount of glazing on the proposed building would create safety issues both for drivers and nearby residents

Mrs S Hankins This type of property is completely out of character with 2 Ashmeads Way, Colehill the rest of the properties in this and the surrounding area of Colehill. Colehill is primarily bungalows and this type of property would be very imposing and spoil the whole look of a family residential area. Also it is opposite the first school and it isn't appropriate to have several windows looking out over the school and its play areas. The 21 parking spaces would have an impact on traffic and congestion.

Diana Froud The proposed flats mean too high population density at 1 Quarry Close, Colehill an already busy road junction and the design is totally out of the local residential character which I, and presumably other local residents, like even if the architects think it's unimaginative! The flats might also create a precedent which would be very unwelcome and unjust to the majority of people who already pay Council Tax in the area and like it as it is.

7 T Denslow This building would be completely at odds with 12 Stroud Close, anything else in the area. This in itself is not a bad thing but such a building should not be a blight on the area as this size and style of building would be. The location of the access to the development will be at an already dangerous position ie on the brow of the hill and opposite another major road. It is also opposite a very busy school access. Which already cause congestion at the time of drop off and collection of the children.

Mr And Mrs Ripley Not within keeping with the area 19 Ashmeads Way, Colehill Open floodgates for other developers Increased volume of traffic and difficulty in road access Increase amount of people walking down the alley way which will result in damage Water damage concerns Traffic increase will also increase noise The building is too high and will not only over look but also block their natural light - which will increase the "wet" problems further

Fred Lines Dangerous Access 6 Quarry Close, Colehill Too high for the area Density too much and not within keeping Car parking inadequate No Architectural merit - unsuitable for the area Screening of trees is NOT long term and there will be considerable visual impact

Mr D Henderson Object: 26 Ashmeads Way, Colehill Increase in traffic Overlooking school

E L Davies Object: 8 Paget Close, Colehill Traffic concerns

A J Uphill Object: 5 Olivers Road, Colehill Not in keeping with the area Height concerns

R & M Davis Object: 14 Ashmead Way, Wimborne Access concerns Increase in traffic

D Richardson Object: 13 Stroud Close, Colehill Out of keeping with area Height concerns Overlooking Loss of light

Ola Steadman 1. Out of keeping with the area. 3 Quarry Close, Colehill 2. The development would tower well above the tree line.

8 3. To add to the first 2 points. The trees around the plot are mostly deciduous, so even more of the development would be seen during the winter months. 4. Junction onto Middlehill Road would make junction even more tricky.

Mrs J Helliker Object: 34 Mallard Road, Colehill Out of keeping height concerns Increase traffic Road safety concerns

Andrew Dudley Objection Horton View, Greenbottom Concerns with additional traffic Overdevelopment

Mr And Mrs Coombes objection 20 Ashmeads Way, Colehill out of character traffic concerns

Mr M Harry objection 115 Middlehill Road, Colehill loss of amenity overlooking traffic/access concerns inappropriate

Mr J Ireland objection 11 Sunnybank Road, Colehill out of character traffic/parking/access concerns

D Walmisley objection 117 Middlehill Road, Colehill inappropriate overlooking traffic/access concerns

S Rayment objection 11 Ashmeads Way, Colehill out of keeping loss of privacy

W H Richards Object 14 Stroud Close, Colehill Affect there health.

Ivor R Scott Object: 21 Ashmeads Way, Colehill Overlooked Tree concerns Increase in traffic Access concerns Not in keeping with the area Wildlife concerns

R Brown Object 15 Stroud Close, Colehill Traffic increase. Overlooking 'Seagull' would be more at home in Sandbanks.

Mr And Mrs Wright Object: 30 Ashmeads Way, Colehill Out of character with the area Overlooked Traffic concerns

S J Beatie Object: 74 Middlehill Road, Colehill Overlooked Height concerns Out of character with the area Increase in traffic

Robert Johnston Colehill has no other building on this scale, this size or 5 Brackenhill Road, Wimborne this design - it is not within keeping and would be better suited to Poole. It would create increased traffic which is already busy Development would be next to a school and this is already a busy junction IT IS UGLY

Maria Bulter I object to the application for the following reasons. 18 Stroud Close, Colehill 1. At present Middlehill Road carries far more traffic than the road itself was intended to carry. Having 14 flats here and having the only access on to this road will increase traffic. Where the proposed flats are to be located will mean that access is close to the Pilford Road entrance and also on the brow of a hill with a bus stop on either side of the road. These factors will greatly increase the danger level for the many users of this area. 2. The nature of Colehill is that it is an area where houses and bungalows blend in with the natural environment and many areas are kept wooded and green. This 7 storey plan will necessitate removal of greenery, this at a time when we should be keeping as many trees as we possibly can, grow more if possible, but not remove more. With some plots having wooded areas which have by-laws that specify that they must be maintained. How can an application be accepted that goes against this. 3. The article in the 'Daily Echo' referred to a 'very modern design, something that would lift the rather dull architecture that exists in the area.' The present architecture and semi-rural lifestyle of Colehill is what attracts buyers to the neighbourhood and makes others aspire to live here. A structure as the one proposed would change the nature of Colehill irrevocably, for the worse. The proposed structure is more suited to Sandbanks or Gunwharf Quay, not the semi-rural Parish of Colehill. 4. At present many houses and bungalows in Colehill have the privacy that most buyers would prefer. A 7 storey 'large seagull flying out to the coast' will stand out like the proverbial sore thumb and overlook

10 neighbours, not something that is needed or desired in this parish. Let the seagull fly out of Colehill.

Michael Greenland Object. 18 Ashmeads Way, Colehill Out of character with area. Not sufficient off road parking - parking problems adj. to First School. Over development of site. Dangerous access onto Middlehill Road

Officers Report:

This application comes before Members because of the unusual nature of the proposal and issues raised.

The application involves the demolition of an existing split level bungalow on the site and its replacement with a seven storey block of 14 flats with two of these floors being at lower ground level. The site which covers an area of approx. 0.4ha land is a sloping site situated on the south side of Middlehill Road, on the southern slopes of Colehill. There are a number of mature trees on the site, some of which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The proposed access is from Middlehill Road with undercroft parking located at first floor level. A pedestrian footbridge leading off Middlehill Road will also be provided to the building at second floor level.

There have been 34 letters and emails objecting to the proposal from local residents at the time of writing and also an objection from the Parish Council.

In his design and access statement, the architect describes the concept of the building as being developed from “a large seagull flying out towards Poole Harbour having realised the storm has subsided, and is on its way back to the coast. The gull-wing roof sitting over glazed facades at night will give the appearance of this building being in flight. The glazed facades will be slightly reflective and will thus reflect the sylvan character of this site back to the building. During the day the gull-wings will look as though it is flying out across the trees”.

It is also stated that the building will sit quietly behind a substantial tree bank off Middlehill Road and will have very little impact upon the locale. This is not accepted by your officers.

The ridge of the existing dwelling on the site measures 50.6 metres above ordnance datum, whereas the proposed roof of the proposed flats would be 64.75m. This results in the flats being just over 14 metres higher than the existing building. To put this in perspective the road level at the front of the site is 49.9m. The roof of the house is therefore about the same height (0.7m higher) as the road, (taking into account the sloping nature of the site) so the flats will appear 14 metres higher than the road.

The tree screen that exists on the frontage ranges between roughly 6 and 10 metres in height and is mainly deciduous. The larger trees near the access are much higher. The flats are therefore likely to be seen through the deciduous hedgeline from Middlehill Road and which will only be a partial screen for six months of the year.

From the rear the flats extend to a full 22 metres in height, given the extra ground and lower ground floors. This will be the aspect from the Stour Valley with tree screening for the lowest part of the block.

The height and bulk of the proposed block, compounded by its bold form, would introduce a prominent feature on the hillside that would significantly impact on its character. Equally 11 important, the flatted scheme would begin to re-define the area’s character. Its impact would be made worse by the proposed green roof and the proposed extensive use of glass.

There are no other buildings of this scale within Colehill, which predominantly contains single and two storey dwellings and public buildings. The comments in the design and access statement, that it would have little impact on the locality, cannot therefore be accepted.

The impact of the proposed block would be damaging to the landscape character of Colehill, when viewed from the Stour Valley. Although Colehill is extensively developed, most of these developments, which comprise low-rise suburban houses and bungalows, are concealed by trees, thus giving a strong wooded backdrop to the valley. These southern slopes represent an important and highly distinctive landscape feature.

The concerns about the substantial form of the structure in terms of height, width and bulk were raised with the architect twice in writing prior to the submission of the application. These concerns have not been addressed by the current proposal.

Whilst the design is innovative, it is considered to be more appropriate to a coastal or urban location and out of character with Colehill. The design fails to regard the amenities of surrounding properties or relate to its suburban context. It is considered the proposed flats would introduce a prominent feature in the landscape which would contrast with the currently wooded character provided by the trees around the low-rise suburban housing of Colehill.

Contrary to the design and access statement’s view, the area is not in need of a landmark flats development to give it ‘lift’. The reference points are more subtle than that, such as the various schools; St Michael’s Church; the parade of shops and the post-office.

The Architect’s panel considered the design and concluded that it was over-scaled, showy architecture which amounted to overdevelopment, with a large expanse of roof. They considered that the proposal was “ill mannered and arrogant”, very urban not appropriate to its setting, and in need of ground sculpting, retaining walls and light wells. They also questioned the relationship with trees and roots.

Drawing number 394/16 (The Site Section) shows the potential impact of the proposed development on adjacent properties. The section shows how the block of flats, on account of its height and bulk, combined with its proximity to the site boundaries, would have an overbearing impact on the amenities of its neighbouring properties.

The block will appear overpowering and dominant. With little or no screening along the boundary with 15 (and part of 14) Stroud Close it would result in overlooking from the side balconies and windows of the building (15m high) within 8m of the boundary. Although the screening alongside most of 14 Stroud Close is dense, the removal of two trees at the front of the screen will open up the screen and the new external staircase may result in loss of the first two trees in the hedge screen which could result in the removal of the remainder of it as the brown inner crowns will be exposed. This would exacerbate the overlooking from side balconies.

There are similar issues with 74 Middlehill Road through the gap in the tree screen and alongside the balconies which would reach up to the screen, requiring severe cutting back or removal. This conifer screen alongside Middlehill Road is of poor quality and despite the claims of the design statement; it would not be likely to be retained in the long-term, due to its form and poor maintenance in the past.

12 In this respect it should be noted that the submitted site plan shows the outline of the building incorrectly plotted. A comparison with the submitted floor plans shows that in reality, the building would be approx. 1.8m further eastwards towards the boundary of the site, thereby placing the balconies within the conifer screen. This puts further doubt in the screen’s retention.

Whilst Ashmeads Way to the rear is at a distance of about 40 metres from the proposed balconies, such that direct overlooking would not occur, the flats would still have an overbearing impact upon them given that they are 4 metres lower than the land level where the block reaches up 22 metres, totalling a 26 metre high effect over them. They would also be affected by perceived overlooking as a result of the quantity of windows and balconies facing them.

The high level of overlooking would be made even worse given the extensive area of glazing that is proposed. For half of the year the boundary trees will be without foliage, when its impact would be felt most. The night-time impact should also be considered, especially given the current prevailing light levels and the light emitted from such large areas of glass. Light pollution would be a material planning concern given the large glazed areas that would be lit at night and exacerbated during the winter months.

Disturbance to the Stroud close properties is also likely to occur, by virtue of the close proximity of the access drive and entrance to the undercroft parking area at first floor level, together with amplification of sound through revving of engines up (or down) the slope. Headlights could also be a problem, if existing boundary screening is not improved. No landscaping scheme has been submitted with the proposal to suggest that any new planting would be provided to help prevent the impact of headlights facing their house and garden as they turn out of the car park. However, given the proximity to the site boundary, there is little opportunity to remedy this.

Access to the site will involve creation of a new access in the north-west corner of the site. The County Highway Officer is satisfied that this can be achieved to his standards by removing part of the frontage screening, which will open up views into the site further. The proposed footbridge link to the flats from the road will also involve loss of a section of hedging and open up a further view to the block in the street scene.

Although residents have strongly objected to the dangerous access for 14 flats, and the effect of more traffic at this junction, it meets highway safety standards and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

The parking arrangements provide for 21 cars within the first floor of the scheme, which allow for 1.5 spaces per flat.

Whilst there are also seven spaces at the front and side of the site, parking space 4 does not work as the car would reverse into the lift shaft. In addition to this, spaces 1 to 4 and a bin store, for which no design details are provided, are also within the no construction zone with regard to trees. Inadequate information has been provided to show how they could be constructed without harming the protected frontage trees which are of significant amenity value.

The tree officer has expressed several concerns in relation to the trees on the site and recommends refusal on the basis that the scheme if constructed with the details provided would be likely to damage trees during construction and damage important screening from adjacent dwellings.

13 At the front of the site, the proposed footbridge from the highway to the second floor will necessitate a considerable level of crown lifting to Pine T2, but no details have been provided to demonstrate the likely effect of such pruning on visual amenity or the future health of the tree.

To the rear the proposed external staircase also encroaches into a ‘no construction zone’ of protected trees, without detail of how this could be carried out without harm to the trees.

In relation to the access of plant, storage of building materials and space for construction activity, the size and position of the proposal heavily constrains the site. Although the Arboricultural Method Statement suggests that these matters could be confirmed at a pre- construction site meeting, it is appropriate that in a site of such intense activity, where large scale plant and machinery are likely to be required, that these matters are addressed clearly by the applicant and agreed by the Local Planning Authority prior to formal planning consent to avoid additional pressure on the trees. Section 7.2 of the BS.5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction, lists a range of issues that should be addressed within the Arboricultural Method Statement, but haven’t been.

Turning to the affordable housing issue, the proposal from the outset has been described as 14 flats. Neither the application or Design and Access Statement demonstrate how this figure was arrived at, or provide justification why the site is unsuitable for affordable housing.

It is noted that this point was recognised in a report compiled by the applicants planning agent (and set out in full in the submitted Design and Access Statement). In para. 5.2 of the report, the agent refers to the thresholds where affordable housing needs to be provided. He then advises in para. 5.3:

“There is a possibility that the Local Planning Authority could be persuaded to accept a financial contribution for off site provision, but attitudes are beginning to harden against accepting financial contributions. In any event the level of expected contributions may be uneconomic.”

He went on:

“5.4 If the design constraints commend a development of less than 14 dwellings it may help to fight off any claim for affordable housing. The site has an area of just over 0.4ha and so in terms of criterion (a) it does not fall into that category for affordable housing requirements.

5.6 It would be useful to obtain an estimate of costs for overcoming the access, topography and tree constraints. This might be used to show why the site is unsuitable for affordable housing in the context of D.O.E. Circular 6/98.”

If the site is capable of accommodating the 14 units then there is no reason why it could not accommodate 15 smaller units, and therefore provide affordable units. Whilst it is the view of your officers that the site may not be suitable for a scale of development that would allow for 14 flats, if the applicant has applied for 14 then it is for them to demonstrate how they arrived at that number. This explanation has not been provided despite several requests.

Concerning the Heathland Mitigation Policy, the application is not accompanied by either payment or a Unilateral Undertaking agreeing to pay, the appropriate contributions required. Without such payment the application has to be refused due to the harmful impact it would have upon the heathlands of Holt, Slop Bog, Ferndown Common, Corfe and Barrow Hills and Canford Heath.

This proposal as submitted therefore fails to demonstrate in a significant number of ways that it has fully taken into consideration the constraints of the site, the context and the locality in general.

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

Reasons:-

1 The substantial form of the structure in terms of scale, height, width and bulk, compounded by its bold form, would introduce a prominent feature on the hillside that would be out of character with the area. Its impact would be exacerbated by the proposed green roof and the extensive use of glass. The impact of the proposed block would be damaging to both the immediate surroundings and the landscape character of Colehill, when viewed from the Stour Valley, and would be contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

2 The design of the building fails to have adequate regard to context, in particular, the amenities of surrounding properties and the suburban character of the area. The design of a 'landmark' building would produce a prominent feature in the landscape which would be obtrusive and harmful within the currently wooded character provided by the trees around the low-rise suburban housing of Colehill. As such the proposal is contrary to policy DES8 of the East Dorset District Plan.

3 The block of flats, on account of its height and bulk, combined with its proximity to the site boundaries, would have an overbearing impact on the amenities of its neighbouring properties, namely 14 and 15 Stroud Close, 74 Middlehill Road and Ashmeads Way, being contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

4 There would be overlooking from the side balconies and windows of the building (15m high) within 8m of the boundary of No 15 Stroud Close, where there is little or no screening along the boundary. Overlooking from windows and balconies would also occur over No 14 Stroud Close and 74 Middlehill Road, particularly through the gap in the existing hedge. Perceived overlooking would occur over the properties in Ashmeads Way due to the quantity of glazing, which will be highly visible and lit for large parts of the time, together with balconies facing their properties. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

5 The night-time impact of the flats in the sky will be cause light pollution to the amenities of the locality, given the low prevailing light levels in the vicinity and the levels of light which would be emitted from such large areas of glass within the block of flats. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DES2 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

6 Disturbance will occur to 15 and 14 Stroud Close as a result of the close proximity of the access drive and entrance to the undercroft parking area at first floor level, together with amplification of sound through revving of engines up (or down) the slope and their headlights through the sparse landscaping. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset District Plan.

7 The site has a large number of trees on and adjacent to it of which some are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. These trees provide a high level of visual amenity from outside and within the site. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that proposed development would not cause damage to trees during construction

15 leading to tree loss or reduced health and vigour. The proximity of the proposal is incompatible in their relationship to established trees and hedges which afford an important screen from adjacent dwellings and is therefore contrary to the EDLP policy DES8.

8 The scheme is contrived in that it fails to provide, by design, any affordable housing and therefore seeks to avoid the requirements of Policy HODEV 5 of the East Dorset Local Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing (SPG 28).

9 The proposal lies more than 400m but less than 5km from a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest of international importance. It is nearest to Holt Heath SSSI which is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area) and is also part of the Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of Conservation) and is a RAMSAR site. The proximity of these European sites (SPA and SAC) means that determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat Regulations 1994, in particular Regulations 48 and 49. The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the proposal will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland. It is considered that the proposed development would in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to heathland, be likely to have a significant effect on the SPA and SAC features. On the advice of Natural England, the most appropriate way of avoiding further adverse urban pressures on the European sites would be through the implementation of a comprehensive package of measures by the local authorities and other bodies to mitigate such pressures. The applicant has not submitted any contribution towards mitigation following the adopted Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 01.01.07. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be contrary to the recommendation of the Bern Convention Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands as well as Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation, Environment policies A, B, C and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and Policy NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/07/0967/FUL

Proposal: CCTV Equipment (4 cameras) to be Mounted on 2 Telegraph Poles (2 cameras per pole) at the Front of the Property. Concrete Pillars to be Erected to Rear of Building.

Site Address: Sturminster Marshall Memorial Hall, Churchill Close, Sturminster Marshall, for Mr D Miller

Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Open Space/Recreational Area LP Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

16 Site Notice expired: 1 September 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Sturminster Marshall Parish Objection: Council Comments: Erection of Telegraph poles with concrete bollards surrounding will have a detrimental affect on the street scene at this location

Consultee Responses:

EDDC Community Safety Officer

EDDC Tree Section The plan used in the application is out of date as the last tree on the south side of the Lime avenue on Churchill Close does not exist.

I have no objection to the proposal on the provision that it is not intended to secure a clear site line from the CCTV cameras to the east along Churchill Close as this will necessitate severe and pruning of the Lime trees growing on Council owned land.

If you are minded to approve this application, please include the following informative note.

In granting consent for the installation of the CCTV cameras, the Council does not in any way imply that it will undertake or permit any pruning of the Lime trees growing on the highway verge, in order to facilitate a clear site line due east along Churchill Close.

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application comes to committee at the request of Cllr Bennett and on account of the Parish Council objection given the Officer recommendation for approval.

The proposal is for the erection of two telegraph poles (reclaimed timber examples). On submission of the application it was proposed to have 4 concrete bollards surrounding each pole, however the bollards have now been deleted from the proposal. Two Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV cameras) will be installed at the top of each pole. The poles are to be positioned at the front of the hall on the frontage with Churchill Close.

The cameras are to be black and will be 11cm long and 12.25cm in diameter. They will be mounted on the poles with brackets. The brackets will be 13cm long and 11.5cm high.

There is a gap behind the hall and concrete bollards are to be installed at each end of this gap to prevent vehicles entering the space at the rear of the hall.

17 The proposal has arisen as there is an ongoing problem with vandalism and other anti-social behaviour at the hall, and the scheme has been designed in conjunction with the Community Police Officer.

The concrete bollards proposed at the rear of the hall will not be readily visible from Churchill Close and as they will be small structures at 1m tall or less, they will have no adverse impact on the street scene or the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.

The telegraph poles are considered to be appropriate for the street scene, as they are commonly found in residential areas and are not an unusual sight. The cameras will not be visually prominent due to their small size and position near the top of the poles. Therefore it is considered that there will be no adverse visual impact on the street scene arising from the proposal.

The Council’s Tree Officer has no objection to the proposal, provided that it is not intended to secure a clear sight line from the CCTV cameras to the east along Churchill Close, as this will require severe pruning of the Lime trees growing on Council owned land. An informative to the permission is suggested in this respect.

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.

Informatives:

1 In granting consent for the installation of the CCTV cameras, the Council does not in any way imply that it will undertake or permit any pruning of the Lime trees growing on the highway verge, in order to facilitate a clear sight line from the cameras due east along Churchill Close.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/07/1005/FUL

Proposal: Replacement camping shop; replacement glasshouse; reorganisation of vehicular accesses; reorganisation of retail, servicing and car parking area; and repositioning of existing storage containers (as amended by plan received 10th August 2007).

18 Site Address: John Browns Garden Centre, Ringwood Road, Three Legged Cross, for Golden Acres (Holdings) Limited

Constraints Article 4 Directions Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 12 September 2007 Advert expired: 7 September 2007 Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 September 2007

Verwood Town Council No objection. Comments:

Consultee Responses:

EDDC Tree Section If minded to grant consent please condition the tree protection

County Highways Development Comments to be submitted as soon as possible. Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda because the scale of the proposal merits consideration by the Planning Committee as the site is located within the Green Belt.

John Browns is a long established garden centre which lies on the south side of Ringwood Road to the east of 3LX. It has recently been acquired by Golden Acres Nursery of West Parley.

There is a certificate of lawfulness which confirms the existing uses on the site.

The main element of this application is a new glass house towards the centre of the site. There are existing buildings set behind the car park which screen the structures which lie to the rear. The new building will be no more obtrusive than the one it is replacing. There is a small increase in volume. The dimensions are:

Floor area : Proposed 952 sq. m. : Existing 945 sq. m. Height to eaves : Proposed 3 metres : Existing 3 metres.

The proposal also involves the erection of a camping shop to replace the existing one and stores which lie in the north-west corner of the built-up part of the site. The existing building is located under an oak tree and its re-siting would be beneficial from that point of view. It will be moved slightly closer to the rear boundary of the site onto that part of the site occupied by a permanent display of mainly large frame tents but it will be turned through 90 degrees so that only its less obtrusive side elevation faces west. The proposed building will have a floor area of 295 sq. m. compared to the existing 312 sq. m. It is a low building with a height of only 4.5 metres.

The application also involves re-arranged car parking and altering the frontage so that the three accesses are reduced to two. This will be beneficial visually and from a highway safety point of view. The existing arrangement has the potential for confusion.

There are no factors which would suggest this application should be refused. There is no adverse impact on the appearance or character of the countryside and it is not inappropriate development when taking into account the existing buildings on the site and the lack of harm to its openness of the Green Belt.

No objections have been received.

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 protection of the trees shall be carried out in accordance with the Scott Tree Services Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement dated 8 July 2007 and the addendum dated 17 September 2007. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown on drawing no : PO7-22;05, and in accordance with the submitted addendum, before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason : To protect trees in the interests of the amenities of the area.

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 glasshouse shall only be used in connection with the preparation, display and sale of goods which are associated with the use of the premises as a garden centre.

Reason : To ensure that other goods are not sold in a location which would be unsustainable.

5 The camping shop shall only be used for the sale of camping and related products and/or products appropriate to the use of the site as a garden centre.

Reason : To reflect the current situation and ensure that a more general retail activity is not established in an unsustainable location.

6 The existing camping outlet which is shown to be removed shall be demolished within one month of the completion and occupation of the new camping shop.

Reason : To maintain the openness of the Green Belt.

20 7 The existing outside cafe seating area shall be removed within one month of the completion and occupation of the new glasshouse and the use shall not be reinstated.

Reason : In the interests of the openness of the Green Belt.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/07/1007/OUT

Proposal: Erect 8 Flats on Two Storeys above Existing Shop.

Site Address: C/O Parkway And Station Road, 126 Station Road, West Moors, for Malbury Properties Ltd

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Town Centre Policy Area LP Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 7 September 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 31 August 2007

West Moors Parish Council Objection: no car parking facilities available for the Comments: proposed flats.

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development No objection: subject to no parking spaces on site being Liaison Officer allocated for the flats.

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application comes before Members as the recommendation is contrary to the comments of the Parish Council.

Description of Proposal This is an outline application with approval sought for layout, scale, appearance and access at this stage. There is currently a single storey Tesco Express convenience store on this corner site, at the junction of Station Road and Parkway. There is another single storey shop immediately adjacent to the south, with 2 storey flats beyond.

The proposal is to build 2 storeys above the convenience store to provide 6 one-bedroom and 2 two-bedroom flats. Access to the flats will be from a new entrance porch and staircase at the rear of the existing shop. 8 bicycle stands are proposed at the entrance to the

21 staircase. There would be no allocated parking for these flats but there is a large public car park further up Parkway.

The main issues in the consideration of this proposal are: Principle of this form of development Visual impact Impact on nearby dwellings Highways Nature Conservation.

Principle of development: This site is within the defined urban area of West Moors. Government objectives as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1), specifies that Planning Authorities should promote the efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and that Planning should actively seek to bring vacant and underused previously developed land into beneficial use to achieve the Government’s targets in respect of housing provision and sustainable development. Further to this, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3), specifies that the planning system should deliver a range of housing in sustainable locations which offer a good range of community facilities with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Saved Policy HODEV1 and HODEV2 of the EDLP specify that housing development within existing urban areas and village policy envelopes will be permitted providing its location and form are appropriate to the physical and visual character of the settlement.

Taking into account Government guidance and the saved policies in the East Dorset Local Plan, it is considered that this site clearly falls within the above categories. There have been similar mixed schemes, with retail on the ground floor and residential above, further up Station Road. This is a sustainable location with a mixture of shops, eating and drinking establishments and other facilities in the immediate vicinity and also a bus service along Station Road. It is therefore considered that this is the type of site which the Government and the Local Plan is promoting for housing development and should be supported.

Visual Impact: As this is a relatively prominent corner site, it was considered that the appearance of the development should be considered at this stage. Following discussion with the applicant, ‘appearance’ is now one of the matters to be considered at this stage and not reserved for future consideration. The proposed design echoes the style of other recent developments along Station Road, with a lightweight slate roof and small lead clad bay windows at first floor level to punctuate and add interest to the elevations. The materials to be used for the elevations are proposed to echo other recent developments in the area and unify the development. The second storey is set partly within the roof space, which keeps the ridge height down to 11.5m.

PPS3 advises that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. Although it is recognised that this will be a considerable increase in the amount of built volume on the site, it is considered, that this scheme has been sensitively designed and will be a positive addition to the appearance of this part of West Moors. It therefore accords with advice in PPS1 which specifies that good design is indivisible from good planning, the above quoted advice in PPS3, together with Saved Policy DES8 of the EDLP.

Impact on nearby dwellings: There are flats to the south east which have high level windows facing towards the application site. There are flats above the retail units to the north east which has an obscure

22 glazed window facing towards the application site. There is also a flat above the public house to the north west. The access deck to the flats will afford some limited degree of overlooking to the flats to the south east but the windows on this elevation are high level. As there is a distance of over 10m between the development and the boundary with the flats to the south east and as these flats have no principle windows facing towards the application site, it is considered that, on balance, there will be no material loss of amenity to the occupiers of these flats.

The flat to the north west has only one obscure glazed window facing towards the application site and no loss of privacy or amenity should result from this proposal. The flat above the public house has windows in the side elevation facing towards the application site at a distance of approximately 15m across Parkway. Given the nature of this accommodation and the existing position, it is considered that there would be no material loss of amenity to the occupiers of the flats above the public house which would justify refusing the application for this reason.

Highway Impact: The Parish have raised concerns about the lack of parking for the scheme and the existing parking situation in the area. The car park to the rear of the store is required for shoppers and therefore should not be marked up and allocated for the occupiers of the flats. The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposal as there is considerable parking available a short distance away in the public car park further up Parkway. It is considered that it would not be reasonable and not necessary to specifically allocate parking in a public car park for the occupiers of the flats. Potential new owners will be aware of the parking situation and able to make an informed decision on whether to purchase the flats on this basis. Refusing the application on the lack of dedicated on site parking could not be justified or substantiated on appeal and would be contrary to the above quoted Government guidance relating to sustainable development.

Nature Conservation: The site lies between 400m and 5km of Internationally protected heathland. Therefore, under the Dorset Heathlands interim planning strategy, the applicants have entered into a Unilateral Undertaking to contribute towards mitigation measures, should planning permission be granted. Therefore no objection to the proposal is raised under Saved Policy NCON4 of the EDLP.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 (a) Before any development is commenced details of all 'Reserved Matters', that is the following matters in respect of which details have not been given in the application and which relate to the shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for their subsequent approval and shall be carried out as approved. (b) An application for approval of any 'Reserved Matters' shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. (c) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

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

23 Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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

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

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

Reason: To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

4 Plans and particulars showing the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse and recycling, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved. Such provision as is agreed shall be implemented concurrently with the development and thereafter retained.

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

Informatives:

1 This application is the subject of a S.106 Unilateral Undertaking requiring the payment of contributions towards mitigation measures under the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/07/1016/FUL

Proposal: Two Storey Extension, Rear Conservatory and Double Garage

Site Address: 22 Lone Pine Drive, West Parley, Ferndown, for Mr And Mrs N Hennen

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (15m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 12 September 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 September 2007

24 West Parley Parish Council Objection: Comments: No objections to two storey extension and conservatory, but have concerns regarding stand alone double garage situated in front garden, forward of existing dwelling.

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development No Objection subject to conditions Liaison Officer

EDDC Tree Section No arboricultural objections

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

The application is before members as the observations of the Parish Council are at odds with your officers’ recommendation.

The proposal – This development is a full submission for the erection of a two storey extension to the rear, a new conservatory and double garage.

The application drawings indicate that the new garage will be located to the front of the property, behind the existing hedge which fronts Lone Pine Drive.

There are a number of trees both within the site and adjacent to its boundaries. The site is not covered by Tree Preservation Order.

Policy Framework

The site is within the urban area of Ferndown as defined in the East Dorset Local Plan.

The site is covered by the East Dorset Local Plan which was adopted in January 2002. In particular, Policy DES8 applies.

Identification and Assessment of issues

The issues that relate to this full application are; a) Design/external appearance b) Impact on neighbours c) Siting of garage d) Trees

Design/external appearance – The property itself is a single storey dwelling with rooms in the roof. The extensions proposed effectively make a two storey element to the front and rear. The dwelling is set back from the road and seen through trees. It will change the appearance of the property, but not harmfully.

Impact on neighbours – The adjoining dwellings and occupiers will be affected to some extent, merely because the development raises the height of the property and there will be windows at the first floor rear rather than roof lights. It is not considered that the potential for

25 overlooking is great and harm will not be caused, as the distances between dwellings and the length of rear gardens is such as to minimise the issue. There is a need to secure matching materials here and this can be conditioned.

Siting of garage – The proposal is to erect a double garage in the front garden of the property, close to the front boundary. It is this element of the proposal that has been objected to by the Parish Council. Two doors away, a similar garage has been erected in the front garden and this has a minimal impact on the street scene and no harmful impact on character. The plan does not make clear the level of existing screening. Whilst it is felt that the proposal is acceptable in this regard, a landscaping condition would be prudent.

Trees – Whilst there are a number of trees on site, these are not covered by Tree Preservation Order. The arboricultural section has examined the site and report that the trees are not worthy of preservation.

Conclusions – Whilst the Parish Council retain their objections to this development, your officers consider that the details submitted are acceptable. Conditions are suggested.

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 not be brought into use until the access, turning space and parking shown on the approved plan has been constructed and these shall be retained and be kept available for that purpose at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

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

26 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.

5 The existing natural tree screen/hedgerow along the eastern (front) boundary of the site shall be retained and reinforced where necessary in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any such reinforcement shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive following the first occupation of the adjacent building maintained for a period of five years during which time any plants that are found to be dead or dying shall be replaced.

Reason: To maintain and enhance the appearance of the locality.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/07/1019/FUL

Proposal: Erect Dwelling (Retrospective Planning Application)

Site Address: Land Adj 2 Pye Close, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs K Keynes

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

Site Notice expired: 21 September 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Corfe Mullen Parish Council Objection: Comments: The permission granted under application 05/1014 was clearly for an extension and not a separate dwelling. There is no parking provision for a separate dwelling and a separate dwelling constitutes a cramped and congested development, affecting the amenity of both the new dwelling and that of no. 2 Pye Close. It is therefore contrary to Policy DES8 and TRANS10.

Consultee Responses:

Natural England To be reported

County Highways Development To be reported Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This is a retrospective application which is on the agenda because the reason for refusal does not reflect the concerns expressed by the Parish Council.

This site is located at the junction of Pye Close and Phellips Road. In September 2005 planning permission was granted for a two storey side extension to an end of terraced property at 2 Pye Close to provide additional bedroom accommodation and bathroom.

However, the applicant has not carried out works in accordance with the approved plan and now appears to be occupied as a separate dwelling.

Indeed the current application seeks retrospective permission to erect ‘a dwelling’. The applicant’s agent point out that ‘the external design and size of the building has already been agreed’ and the proposal ‘makes more efficient use of this brownfield land situated within an urban area without causing demonstrable harm to any matters of acknowledged importance.

Whilst the physical impact of the street scene is as approved when planning permission was granted for the extension and occupants of adjacent properties will not be significantly affected by this proposal, the site is located within 280m of protected Heathland (Barrow Hills SSSI and Ramsar Site). The Heathland Mitigation policy does not apply to dwellings within 400m of internationally designated sites, and as such Natural England are likely to raise objection to this proposal.

It is for this reason that the application is recommended for refusal and that enforcement action taken to remedy the breach of planning control.

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

Reasons:-

1 The proposal lies within 400m of the Corfe and Barrow Hills SSSI. This SSSI is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area) and Ramsar site, and is also part of the Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of Conservation). The proximity of these European sites (SPA and SAC) means that determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat Regulations 1994, in particular Regulations 48 and 49

If the Council had been minded to grant permission in all other respects it would have to carry out an appropriate assessment in accordance with the advice and procedure set out broadly in Circular 06/2005. The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the proposals will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland. It is clear, on the basis of advice from Natural England that, the proposed development would in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to heathland, be likely to have an adverse effect on the heathland special features including those which are SPA and SAC features. Having regard to the Waddenzee judgement (ECJ case C-127/02) the Council is not in a position to be convinced that there is no reasonable scientific doubt to the contrary. For these reasons, and without needing to conclude the appropriate assessment, the proposal is 28 considered contrary to the Environment policies A, B, C and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan as well as the recommendations of the Bern Convention Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands and also Policy NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/07/1101/FUL

Proposal: Single Storey Extension to Form Independent Residential Unit

Site Address: Wolvercroft Spinney, Alderholt, Fordingbridge, for Mr And Mrs Shearing

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 14 September 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Alderholt Parish Council Comments: No objection

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development Liaison No comments received. Officer

Neighbour Comments:

E J Metcalf 22 Oak Road, Alderholt Support Petition

A. J And S. Gibson 2 Oak Road, Support Alderholt Mr and Mrs Shearing have always looked after their property and garden so well, they deserve the right to stay in their home despite their ill health and be able to enjoy the hard work they have put in over many years. The simple extension will affect no one else and they should be allowed to live in their home despite their disabilities.

H L Fookes Support Wolvercroft Garden Centre, Will not cause a problem to them. Fordingbridge Road

Mr And Mrs Upton Object:

29 Windsong, Fordingbridge Road Agricultural tie

J M Pink In Support: Kerreri Croft, Fir Tree Hill

Mr Roger Brett In Support: 19 Provost Street, Fordingbridge Needed due to health problems

Roger Cox In Support: The Local Channel, The Estate Needed to health problems Office

Mr And Mrs Huckle In Support: Twigs, 1 Antells Way Needed due to health problems

Denzil R Perry In Support: Child Okeford, DT11 8EB Needed due to bad health

Peter Breeze In Support: Timaru, 157 Station Road Needed due to ill health

Officers Report:

The application is put to the Planning Committee at the request of the Parish Council. In addition to the above comments a petition with 209 signatures supporting the scheme has been received.

Site Description Wolvercroft Spinney is a large bungalow situated in a secluded position in woodland to the east of Alderholt. The property is set outside the settlement boundary within the open countryside. To the west is situated a barn, while a conservatory has been added to the eastern elevation as permitted development.

Planning History The property was originally granted approval in 1987 (PA 03/87/1050/FUL) in order to service the then Wolvercroft Farm Nurseries. This was subject to a planning condition restricting the occupancy of the dwelling to an agricultural worker.

Earlier this year an application for an independent residential unit alongside the property was submitted (PA3/07/0236/FUL). The application sought to provide new residential accommodation for the current occupant’s who have a number of health difficulties which would in turn allow their daughter and family to move into the original house in order to provide care for them. After consideration this application was refused under the Council’s scheme of delegation on the grounds that the (i) proposal was tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside, (ii) the size and scale of the extension would detract from the character of the area, (iii) the additions proposed to the agricultural workers’ dwelling were of an excessive size and disproportionate to the income that might be generated from the holding so making the overall property less affordable to local persons involved in agriculture; and (iv) the non payment of a contribution towards the Heathland Mitigation Strategy.

Proposal The current application seeks to erect an independent residential unit attached to the original bungalow to allow the current occupants to be cared for by their immediate family. The applicants both have severe disabilities and are in need of longer term health care; Mr

30 Shearing suffered throat Cancer and had a Laryngectomy, while Mrs Shearing suffers from spinal degeneration and Chronic Osteoarthritis.

This application varies from that previously refused by a 25% reduction in the amount of floorspace provided. The proposal comprises a timber framed building approximately 14m by 6.3m to be built in brick with tiled roof. This will be constructed alongside the existing dwelling forming an 'L' shaped wing. The existing dwelling already exceeds 140sq.m. and the attached unit would provide a further 98msq of residential accommodation to include a sitting room, kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom. A store room acts a link to the main dwelling while a separate front door with ramp is provided.

Considerations The key issues are (i) the principle of development i.e. a new non-essential dwelling in the countryside; (ii) the impact of the development on the countryside, (iii) the increase in the size of the property making the dwelling less affordable to local persons involved in agriculture.

The applicants are in need of long term health care and this might be afforded through a much smaller annexe adjoining the property. However, the size and scale of the proposal submitted to the Council for determination is still considered overly large and with the inclusion of a kitchen and separate access more than capable of being occupied as a separate unit.

Whilst the personal circumstances of the applicants are duly noted the accommodation proposed comprises fully self-contained accommodation, rather than an annexe to the property. This is particularly large in terms of floor area and has separate kitchen and access allowing the unit to be easily occupied independently of the main dwelling. The proposal is therefore tantamount to a new non-essential dwelling in the countryside contrary to Policies CSIDE1 and HODEV4 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002).

The size and scale of the proposed development in relation to the existing building and the wider locality is considered overly large and will detract from the undeveloped character of countryside contrary to Policies CSIDE1 and DES 8 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002).

The original property is subject to an agricultural tie that limits the occupation of the dwelling to local persons involved in agriculture, horticulture or forestry, so making the property more affordable to such persons. The additions proposed are of an excessive size (the resultant dwelling will have a floor space of over 240sq.m. and disproportionate to the income that might be generated from the holding so making the overall property less affordable to local persons involved in agriculture. This will inevitably increase the pressure for release from the agricultural occupancy condition at a later date. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy CSIDE5 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

The application site is within 5km of Dorset Heathlands; the applicants have now agreed to make a contribution towards the Heathlands Mitigation Strategy in line with the requirements of the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework.

Summary Whilst the personal circumstances of the applicants are duly noted these are not so material so as to outweigh the development plan policies contained in the East Dorset Local Plan. On this basis the application is recommended for refusal.

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

31 Reasons:-

1 Whilst the personal circumstances of the applicants are duly noted the accommodation proposed comprises fully self-contained accommodation, rather than an annexe to the property. This is particularly large in terms of floor area and has separate kitchen and access allowing the unit to be easily occupied independently of the main dwelling. The proposal is therefore tantamount to a new non-essential dwelling in the countryside contrary to Policies CSIDE1 and HODEV4 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002).

2 The size and scale of the proposed development in relation to the existing building and the wider locality is overly large and will detract from the undeveloped character of countryside contrary to Policies CSIDE1 and DES 8 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002)

3 The original property is subject to an agricultural tie that limits the occupation of the dwelling to local persons involved in agriculture, horticulture or forestry, so making the property more affordable to such persons. The additions proposed are of an excessive size and disproportionate to the income that might be generated from the holding so making the overall property less affordable to local persons involved in agriculture. This will inevitably increase the pressure for release from the agricultural occupancy condition at a later date. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CSIDE5 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/07/1150/COU

Proposal: Retain use of land for outdoor recreation and storage and use of redundant farmyard and three buildings for parking and storage (including covered storage of caravans) (retrospective)

Site Address: Little Hill Farm, Ringwood Road, St Leonards, for Davidson Leisure Resorts Ltd

Constraints Article 4 Directions Airport Safeguarding (15m high) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 27 September 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 September 2007

St Leonards And St Ives Parish To be reported. Council Comments:

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development Liaison Requested additional time Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Mr D C Weller Object Hill Farm, Ringwood Road This is an existing quiet area which should remain agricultural Loss of privacy Noise People entering property due to poor signage Property devalued

Mr R V Hadlow Object The Sycamore, 5 Brockwood A radical and wide-ranging change of use Prospective noise and disturbance- loss of amenity Not benefiting the community Green Belt

Officers Report:

This application has come to Committee at the request of Councillor Warman. The proposal is recommended for refusal because of the impact on the openness of the green belt.

The Site The site comprises approximately 4.85ha of agricultural green belt land north of Shamba Holiday Park and adjacent to the western edge of St Leonards. It is accessed off the A31 by a private unmade road which also serves Shamba Holiday Park, Oakhill Farm and Hill Farm.

The Proposal This partially retrospective application seeks to maintain the use of the majority of the land for recreation and sport associated with Shamba Holiday Park. It is also proposed to use the former farmyard and three redundant farm buildings in the western corner of the application site for overflow car parking and the storage of maintenance equipment and materials including internal caravan storage.

Shamba Holiday Park Shamba Holiday Park, to which the application relates, is long established. In 1988 permission for 75 tent pitches and 75 touring caravans was granted. The 2.2ha park is divided into plots accessed by unmade tracks. Cars are usually parked adjacent to caravans. A clubhouse/shop and swimming pool serve visitors.

Recreation and Sport The recreation and sport area proposed is north of the holiday park and comprises one field and a number of smaller paddocks demarcated by post and wire fences. Current recreational use is evident due to the erection of signs indicating a dog walking route and the siting of dog refuse bins. Goal posts and a mown area of grass form a sports pitch to the west. The pitch is approximately 58m by 73m (below full size for a football field) and is not marked out for any particular sport.

Hill Farm, a dwelling without any associated farmland, is sandwiched between the application site and Shamba Holiday Park. It is protected by a close board fence and vegetation. The occupants of Hill Farm have raised an objection referring to disturbance and the loss of

33 privacy they have experienced due to the increase in human activity related to the change of use. An objection has also been lodged by residents of Brockwood to the east but these properties are less exposed to impacts since they are away from the access, approximately 90m from the sports pitch and screened by trees. The use of this land for sport and passive recreation retains the openness of the Green Belt and is therefore not an inappropriate use. This part of the application is considered acceptable.

Parking and Storage This element of the application relates to the redundant farmyard of 0.2ha in the western corner of the site. There are three redundant farm buildings identified as: Building A, a pole barn positioned to the north granted permission in 1999 Building B, an open sided store positioned on the western edge of the site Building C, an enclosed two storey shed further south. It is proposed to use the buildings for storage, including the storage of caravans in building A. Although the caravans are undercover they will remain visible, altering the character of the site and the openness of the Green Belt.

It is also proposed to use the land between buildings A and C for car parking and open storage. The agent describes the parking use as transient, for peak times when the caravan park is at full capacity, however a condition to secure such use would not be enforceable. The external storage is for paraphernalia associated with maintenance of the caravan park and currently includes a fuel tank and some building materials. This storage and parking does not preserve the openness of the green belt and therefore conflicts with national green belt policy.

Given the above the use of the farmyard for storage purposes is considered to be inappropriate development within this green belt location. Whilst the use of the adjacent field for recreation purposes is considered to be acceptable, the Council are unable to issue a split decision and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

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

Reasons:-

1 The proposed external storage and car parking represents inappropriate development within the green belt which is contrary to Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts in that it does not maintain the openness of the green belt and is contrary to the purposes of including the land within it.

2 The use of land for open storage vehicle parking and the storage of caravans within an open sided building will detract unacceptably from the character of the rural area in conflict with policies CSIDE 1 and CSIDE2 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

34 Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/07/1152/FUL

Proposal: Demolish existing dwelling and replace; Erection of garage and form new access

Site Address: Pear Tree Cottage, Sandleheath Road, Alderholt, for Mr And Mrs Spencer

Constraints Area of Great Landscape Value LP Groundwater Protection Zone

Site Notice expired: 28 September 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Alderholt Parish Council Object: Comments: Design out of keeping with the local area and other houses in the immediate area The large amount of glass on the NE elevation is inappropriate and will cause excessive light pollution in an area without street lighting.

Consultee Responses:

Natural England Object. Bat survey required.

County Highways Development Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda for consideration by the Committee because the objection from the Parish Council conflicts with the recommendation.

Pear Tree Cottage is a brick and slate cottage which lies above the level of the highway on its north side. There is a saddlery occupying a wooden building on its west side and an older cottage (Hillside) on its east side which lies at 90 degrees to the road. There are no windows in its west elevation and to the rear there are trees on the boundary.

This proposal involves the demolition of the existing house and its replacement to the rear with a nicely proportioned house and open car barn which is likely to enhance the qualities of this attractive part of the Area of Great Landscape Value. The proposed materials include stock facing bricks, handmade clay plain tiles and oak featherboarding left unstained. This is a carefully considered, architect designed scheme. The glazing referred to by the Parish Council forms part of the overall concept. There are no policies in the Local Plan which would preclude such a feature. The full glazing is shown to the rear facing gable of the property and would be unlikely to generate any more ‘light pollution’ than a conservatory and first floor window.

There is no significant adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of Hillside.

A bats survey is to be undertaken shortly and the results should be available by the time of the meeting.

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.

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

3 Contemporaneously with the dwelling hereby permitted being first occupied for residential purposes, the existing dwelling proposed for replacement on the application site shall cease to be used for any purpose and shall be demolished and the resultant materials cleared from the site.

Reason: Extant policy demands that the site is only suitable for a single dwelling.

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

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no garage, car port or extension to the dwelling shall be erected without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: To protect the appearance and character of this part of the Area of Great Landscape Value.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 11. Ref: 3/07/1169/FUL

Proposal: Single Storey Extension

36 Site Address: Broomhill Methodist Church, Colehill Lane, Broomhill, for Broomhill Methodist Church

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 10 October 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Holt Parish Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses:

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application comes before Committee because the recommendation is contrary to greenbelt policy.

The small church is sited between residential properties within a linear settlement in the green belt. The building is a simple gable design but previous extensions have been added to the rear to provide kitchen and toilet facilities.

It is now proposed to lengthen the existing pitched roof rear extension north-east, incorporating an existing lean to, and expand its width 1.25m north-west where there is currently a pathway to the rear entrance. This would result in a floor area increase of 7.5 square metres. It is intended that the pitched roof should also provide a storage area creating an additional 32 square meters. By providing additional storage space the existing floor area can be rearranged to enable the expansion of toilet facilities to include provision for the disabled and young families. The main entrance will be via a new door in the north east elevation.

With the proposal positioned to the rear of the church there will be little impact on the street scene. The extension will be partially obscured by the existing hedge and vegetation in the front garden of Cornwood Cottage. The only building to the rear is a garage within the curtilage of Broom Cottage. The form and materials proposed are in keeping with and deferential to the original church building.

National and local green belt policies do not provide an exception clause for community facility proposals so the expansion is classed as inappropriate development. However this proposal represents only a small increase in floor area and bulk which is not considered to be disproportionate to the existing church building and the proposal 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.

37 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.

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

Informatives:

1 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

6. Appendices 6.1 None.

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