East Dorset District Council Planning Committee 11Th January, 2011

Everyone 7 128 2044 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 11/01/2011 09:30:12 Chief Executive Old 52 1

East Dorset District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Item No 6 11th January, 2011 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Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.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 Contact Officer Michael Hirsh, Head of Development Management Financial Implications: None Council Priorities: Environment East Dorset’s natural and built environment is well managed Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Head of Development Management'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 Planning application determination requires a positive and questioning approach by the decision maker to equality matters. Where a particular issue requires a focused consideration there will be a reference in the particular report.

4. Risk Implications 4.1 There are risk implications associated with this report. These relate to the potential for judicial review or maladministration if the applications being reported have not been considered properly in a procedural sense or there is a substantial flaw in the consideration.

5. Application Schedule

No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/10/0810/COU 60 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset 2 2. 3/10/0913/HOU 8 Chine Walk, West Parley, Dorset 7 3. 3/10/0934/FUL Naughty Boy Studio, Cripplestyle, Fordingbridge 10 4. 3/10/0962/HOU Honeysuckle Cottage, Grange, Wimborne 16 5. 3/10/0963/LBC Honeysuckle Cottage, Grange, Wimborne 20 6. 3/10/0997/FUL Dumpton School , Deans Grove, WImborne 24 7. 3/10/1015/HOU 11 Liederbach Drive, Verwood, Dorset 25

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/10/0810/COU

Proposal: Change of Use of Shop (A1) and Hot Food Takeaway (A5) to Restaurant (A3) and Hot Food Takeaway (A5) with Installation of Extract Duct and Fire Exit on Rear Elevation. (As amended by plans dated 2nd December 2010 showing revisions to the siting of the extraction duct)

Site Address: 60 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset, for Mr A Dragusha And Mr A Lurdhi

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

Site Notice expired: 29 September 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 21 December 2010

Verwood Town Council No objection. Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Public Health - No objection to revised plans dated 02/12/10 subject to Housing And Pollution Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure maintenance of system.

Neighbour Comments:

Steve Butler 60A Ringwood Concerns about the new position of the duct which brings it Road, Verwood against the wall of our bedroom. Original planning placed the duct in the roof of no. 60 which for us was less intrusive even if it went to a higher level. I said I have no objection to planning but do have a issue with this change in positioning of the vent.

Mr Andrew Wooding 58 In support of Restaurant, as Verwood needs more dining Ringwood Road, Verwood amenities. Some concerns regarding: Duct being noisy, unsightly and pumping odours across our property. Take Away - prospective drop off point for drunk and dis- orderlies back from their night in Bournemouth? (what will be the licensing hours?) Litter - We used to have large rats running across our garden during the days of JC's / Eazie Pizza! Parking - our drive was often blocked by JC's customers.

Mr T & Mrs M J Noble 62 In support provided the extraction unit is odourless/noiseless Ringwood Road, Verwood and of an environmentally friendly type as explained to us by the applicant

Mrs Sharon Curtis 41 Thorne Excellent news, Verwood needs more amenities.

2 Close, Verwood

Mrs Jo Stannard 98 Owls I write in support of the above planning application, which I Road, Verwood understand, if successful, will result in a new Italian restaurant opening in the town. The applicant has a long established restaurant in Ringwood, which is well managed and very popular, with many residents from Verwood and the surrounding area travelling to dine there. The service and food are of high quality and the restaurant employs local people and sustains local businesses as, for example, all meat is locally sourced and organic. Verwood is sadly lacking in such a family friendly restaurant and I believe that this would make a positive contribution to the town. Indeed, the establishment of a restaurant in this location would meet key Government objectives for promoting the vitality and viability of town centres, as follows: Promoting and enhancing existing centres; Encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all; Enhancing consumer choice Allowing genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community; and Ensuring that communities have access to a range of main town centre uses, and that deficiencies in provision in areas with poor access to facilities are remedied (source: PPS6). The restaurant would be in a central location, within walking distance for many residents and therefore the parking provision would appear to be adequate. Provision has been made for extraction and the appearance and positioning of the flue would not detract from the character of the building or the area. The hours of operation as stated on the application form are reasonable, and can in any case be controlled by condition to safeguard the amenities of nearby residents. The precedent for a restaurant in this area of the town has been set by Spice of India, just across the road at 77 Ringwood Road. I hope you will look favourably on this application and grant permission for the proposed change of use.

Mrs Julia Allnutt 41 Crane The state of the current building is an eyesore. A good Drive, Verwood quality restaurant would be an asset to the town.

R Andrews 5 Starlight Farm In support Close, Verwood

Mr Oliver Rodway 19 This is potentially a great addition to the very limited social Dewlands Road, Verwood facilities available to Verwood residents and visitors. Any enterprise that adds to the quality of living and increases spend by Verwood people in Verwood has real merit and should be supported.

Mrs McAleer 23 Meadow In support Way, Verwood

Claire Green 89 Manor Road, In support Verwood

P & J Swann 69 Lake Road, Support Verwood Many residents from Verwood dine there.

Ms Helen Lush 17 The Lea, Support Verwood Would make a positive contribution to the town.

Miss L Scott Burwood In support Cottage, Damerham Road

Mr Paul Barnett 2 Verwood really needs additional amenities. A restaurant Hillmeadow, Verwood would be very welcome to most residents although no doubt there will be some NIMBY's

Mrs KATHLEEN ELLIS 37 As the present building is an eyesore any development that School Close, Verwood will improve its appearance is welcome and the town would benefit from the addition of a quality restaurant.

Rachelle Phillips 8 Bingham Support Road, Verwood Promotes vitality and viability Well managed and popular

Mrs T Kearn 3 The Support Kingfishers, Verwood Long established, well managed and popular. Promotes existing centres.

Miss A Weston 15a West Support Close, Verwood Many residents from Verwood dine there.

Mr Ben Squire 58 Hainault In support Drive, Verwood

Mrs Fiona Squire 58 Hainault In Support Drive, Verwood

C Cameron 10 Hampton In support Drive, Ringwood

S Hunt The Sycamores, 65 In support Manor Road

Y C Trapp 3 King Richard In support Drive, Bearwood

A Woode 20 School Close, In support Verwood

P Mills 38 Hillmeadow, In support

4 Verwood

N Craven 11 Paddock Grove, In support Verwood

Mrs J King 17 Magnolia In support Close, Verwood

Mr D & Mrs T Brine 53 In support Hazelwood Drive, Verwood

V Percy-Davis 22 Bugdens In support Lane, Verwood

Debbie Caddy 54 In support Woodlinken Drive, Verwood

K R Barker 16 Woodpecker In support Close, Verwood

V E M Barker 25 Bugdens In support Lane, Verwood

H C Holman 104 Ringwood In support Road, Verwood

Officers Report:

The application was deferred at the Planning Committee of November 30th 2010 to allow the applicant to provide revised plans showing the extraction equipment necessary to serve the proposed restaurant use.

Plans have now been submitted showing revisions to the ducting to include internal fans and the cladding of the flue in a brick chimney to lessen noise and appear aesthetically more pleasing.

Site Description The premises was previously run as 'JC’s' a video, grocery and off licence located in a predominantly residential area of Verwood. Parking for seven cars was provided to the front and rear of the premises which operated from 6.30am to 10.pm. A pizza takeaway was then incorporated in part of the building, this use has now lapsed. The premises are currently vacant.

There are a number of residential properties in close proximity to the premises. To the north of the site on the opposite side of the road is an Indian Restaurant that also offers takeaway food.

History A planning application for a pizza takeaway was approved in 2008 (3/08/0496/COU) and was given a one year temporary consent to assess the impact of the business. No complaints were made to the Environmental Health department regarding noise or disturbance during this time. The permission lapsed 1st June 2009. The key issue in consideration of this previous application was the need for an extraction system.

5 As part of the consideration of this application the Council’s Environmental Heath department confirmed that a pizza oven did not require an extraction flue and that there were no objections to the scheme on this basis. However, it was advised that other takeaway uses would require extraction equipment and that given the specific characteristics of the site, namely the close proximity to neighbouring properties, that such equipment would be unlikely to mitigate against food cooking smells. In approving the application the Council placed an informative on the grant of consent making the applicant (and future users) aware that the Council would not favourably consider any application to change the use to an unrestricted A5 use.

A second application 3/09/0536/COU in effect to renew the previous consent was approved in 2009 this was for a permanent permission although the same conditions and informative were applied. The current authorised use is therefore A1 with an element of A5 Takeaway Use restricted to pizza sales only.

Proposal The application seeks a change of use from Retail Shop (A1) and Hot Food Takeaway (Restricted) (A5) to an Restaurant (A3) and Hot Food Takeaway (A5). To service the Italian Restaurant an extract duct is to be fitted with internal fans and filters which will vent through the roof within a new brick built chimney. The applicant has supplied suggested hours of use and confirmed that the parking area to the rear of the premises will be used by patrons.

Considerations The site is within the urban area and was previously used as a retail shop and off licence and pizza takeaway. These uses were a relatively high intensity use in terms of customers and hours of use and were supported by parking to the front and rear. Given this situation and the fact that there is another takeaway nearby in principle the application for a change of use to restaurant and takeaway might be acceptable in this location subject to there being no adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents in terms of emissions from cooking, and noise from extraction fans.

Plans have now been submitted showing revisions to the ducting to include internal fans and the cladding of the flue in a brick chimney to lessen noise and appear aesthetically more pleasing. The revised details are now to the satisfaction of the Council’s Environmental Health Department who are of the view that the flue will ensure emissions are satisfactorily dealt with meeting Policy DES2 of the EDLP. In order to ensure the flue system is regularly and properly maintained a Section 106 Legal Agreement will be sought; this is normal in such applications.

Given the change in the position of the extract ducting affected neighbours have been advised in writing and given the opportunity to comment; any additional comments will be reported to the Planning Committee.

The applicant has agreed to open between 12:00 and 23:00 with the takeaway element of the business closing at 22:00. These opening times are considered reasonable given the location of the business, and will be controlled by planning condition.

Summary On this basis of the above the application is considered acceptable and a favourable recommendation is given. If Members agree to recommend approval the applicant will be asked to sign a Section 106 Legal Agreement to ensure the extract system is regularly and properly maintained.

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

Conditions/Reasons:

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

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

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

Location Plan 1:1250 Elevations 1:100 5687-03/4 Floor Plans 1:50 5687-02A Fan Details

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

3 The hours of opening for the restaurant (A3 Use) hereby permitted shall be between 12.00 and 23:00. The hours of opening for the takeaway (A5 Use) hereby permitted shall be between 12:00 and 22:00.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby dwellings.

4 Prior to the first use as a restaurant, details of an area to be used to store waste bins shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.

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: DES2 DES8

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/10/0913/HOU

Proposal: Two Storey Side Extension (South Elevation) and attached Flat Roof Garage (as amended by plans received 25.11.10)

Site Address: 8 Chine Walk, West Parley, Dorset, for J Clarke

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

7 Site Notice expired: 28 October 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 13 December 2010

West Parley Parish Council Objection. Unacceptable in terms of bulk, design and Comments: prominence in the street scene. Chine Walk falls with Special Character Area and the current plans fail to respect this important designation. The proposals therefore appear to be contract to East Dorset Local Plan policies DES8 and BUCON 6.

West Parley Parish Council Object. Revised proposal remains too bulky even Comments: though first floor over garage has been removed.

Consultee Responses:

EDDC Design And Conservation On balance the amended plans are acceptable.

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application comes before Committee because the officer recommendation to approve is at variance with the comments of the Parish Council.

8 Chine Walk is in the defined urban area of West Parley and within the New Road Special Character Area (SCA). Design policy DES8 and Special Character Area policy BUCON6 of the EDLP apply to the consideration of this application. A previous application 3/10/0667/HOU for ground and first floor extensions to both sides of the property, including raising the roof, was refused under delegated powers on 27th August 2010. The reason read:

‘The proposed two storey extension on the southern side of the dwelling, by virtue of its design, height and overall bulk, will be visually intrusive and unduly prominent in the street scene, fails to respect the spacious characteristics of the New Road Special Character Area and the rhythm and spacing of existing development, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area, contrary to Policies BUCON6 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance 27.’

Your officers were initially concerned that the plans submitted under the current application failed to overcome the above reason for refusal but the applicant has since submitted amended plans. It is these which come before the Committee and which proposed a reduced two storey southern extension and an attached garage to the north. The main consideration is whether the proposals now respect the attributes of the Special Character Area.

Impact on the Special Character Area The New Road SCA is defined in SPG27 as being an area of detached single and two storey dwellings, set back behind established building lines, in large or very large plots. One of the defining characteristics of this area is the number of trees and generous landscaped lawns. This SPG states that within this SCA new development must reflect the rhythm and spacing of existing dwellings and it is important that the feeling of space and the quality of landscaping is maintained. It also specifies that new development must not adversely affect the character of the street scene as a result of inappropriate massing and form or of excessive height.

It is proposed to erect a 3.6m wide, two storey extension to the southern elevation of the property. The extension has a ridge height to match the original property and a half hipped gable end. This is to provide an extended living room and kitchen on the ground floor, with an additional bedroom and en-suite bathroom on the first floor. On the northern side of the dwelling, a 4.2m wide, flat roof garage with a mono-pitch frontage is proposed to replace the existing car port.

Since the previous refusal the size, height and mass of the southern extension has been reduced. In order to maintain the depth, which matches the original dwelling, a varying pitched roof is proposed and this, together with the smaller front dormer window, has reduced the dominance of the extension to an acceptable level. The development would now be 2.5m from the southern elevation with no. 6 reducing the likelihood that boundary landscaping and vegetation would be lost. More significantly the plans no longer propose a two storey extension to the northern elevation, thereby retaining the impression of a gap between no. 8 and no. 10 and maintaining the feeling of space that characterises the area. Although the extension will add significantly to the mass of the dwelling it is considered that the amended design is compatible with the townscape in accordance with policy DES8 and on balance it can be accommodated without harm to the key features of the New Road Special Character Area protected by policy BUCON6.

Impact on adjacent dwellings Number 6 to the south is a 2 storey dwelling with a higher ridge than the existing ridge height of number 8. This property also has its garage adjacent to the boundary with number 8. It is considered that the two storey side extension would not have an overbearing effect on the occupiers of no. 6. One high level window is proposed in the southern elevation of the extension so there would be no loss of privacy to no. 6.

No. 10 to the north has windows in its southern elevation facing towards the application site. It is also set slightly further back from the road than number 8. The garage development will have no greater impact than the existing car port.

The impact on adjacent dwellings is considered acceptable and accords with policy DES8 in this regard.

Neighbours At the time of writing no objections have been received. Any comments will be reported at the Committee meeting.

Conclusion The proposed extensions overcome the previous concerns in respect of their relationship with the original property, the street scene and the impact on the Special Character Area. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:

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

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

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

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

Informatives:

1 In addition to the policies listed below, in reaching this decision the Council has had regard to Supplementary Planning Guidance 27: Special Character Areas.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/10/0934/FUL

Proposal: Convert artists studio/gallery into 2 units of holiday accommodation with extension on east elevation and provision of septic tank (as amended by plans showing site of septic tank rec'd 29.10.2010).

Site Address: Naughty Boy Studio, Cripplestyle, Fordingbridge, for Mr M Hall

Constraints Area of Great Landscape Value LP Bournemouth International Airport Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 400m Consultation Area Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites

Site Notice expired: 5 November 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 1 November 2010

Alderholt Parish Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection. Liaison Officer

Natural England Objects to the proposal.

Neighbour Comments:

John & Karen Mercer Drove Object End Cottage, Cripplestyle This is a small hamlet with nothing to offer holidaymakers except walking. We have been told that due to its proximity to King Barrow (it being an SSSI) the rules of English Nature would not 10 allow any residential use because of the impact on the local environment. Surely holiday lets are going to have a greater impact than any other usage. The traffic using this lane has increased hugely and bringing more people to the lane will make things worse. The road that runs past the chapel and the end of the lane, is a very fast road and trying to get out onto it from this lane can be quite a dangerous procedure. Visibility is poor, especially in summer when grass and hedges are grown.

M Edwards and J Norton of Moor End, also voice their concern at the effect this may have on the area.

Mr Morgan Manston Vale Acre Object Farm Batterley Drove, Alderholt Cripplestyle is a small hamlet, and converting the old chapel into holiday lets would have a detrimental effect on the local area and its residence and the wildlife. There is no parking facility and the road is poor at the best of times to exit onto the fast main road.

Mr & Mrs P Leydon The Manse, Object Cripplestyle Less than two years ago it was deemed that the property could not be converted into a dwelling due to sensitivity of its location in relation to the common land and its SSSI status. The plans would result in a significant increase in traffic in the lane, parked vehicles and could result in serious accidents occurring. Permanent occupancy would mean the property has changed from a studio to four bedroom, four bathroom house. A large raised platform would look directly in to the rear garden of The Manse, removing privacy, and would look directly into the residents of Sunny Corner. The platform also not in keeping with the local dwellings. No provision for a fire escape, should one be put in this would be unsightly. Concerned over likelihood of vermin and unsightly litter arising from refuse awaiting collection. Regarding the treatment of sewage, the solids and liquid chambers are approx 1000 gallons each and whilst adequate for the current usage, would not be able to cope with a significant increase in use. As the plans show four bedrooms, bathrooms, wc's and kitchen this would result in a significant increase in use of tanks and associated drainage. Holiday lets will have no tangible benefits to the small quiet hamlet but will significantly increase traffic, noise and disturbance to the community as well as increasing the amount of footfall onto the common land with resulting erosion of the Barrow and disturbance to wildlife.

11 Mr Graham Bailey Sunny Changing a chapel into something that looks like it should Corner, Cripplestyle be on the Sandbanks Peninsular with its balcony, portholes and stainless steel handrails is one thing, but destroying the peaceful rural Dorset hamlet of Cripplestyle with holidaymakers, their dogs and vehicles can only be detrimental. The impact to its traditional common land and wildlife will only help to destroy the enviroment. The area struggles to cope safely with the level of traffic now with out adding more. This development will overlook my property and that of others with strangers on a weekly basis, will cause parking problems on a narrow country lane, bring strangers to an area with no amenities and leave locals feeling unsafe with strangers in their midst. I hope this is not what our Council will allow to happen! I believe the best for this chapel is to allow it to become a sensible home for a caring family that will fit into the area and care about its surroundings by saving this wonderful building. A very concerned neighbour.

Mrs D Perks Bittersweet Farm, Object Cranborne Road Where will the cars and holiday equipment be parked? Eight holiday people would inevitably produce the minimum of four cars. The morning and evening traffic is now substantial.

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda for consideration by the Planning Committee because there are more than four letters opposing the development and the recommendation does not reflect all of these concerns.

The application was withdrawn from the agenda for consideration on 30 November 2010 because an objection was received from Natural England after the original finely balanced recommendation to grant planning permission was drafted.

Planning History

This building was a chapel which was built in 1888. 0n 6 January 2009 planning permission (3/08/1310) was granted for the building to be used as a studio and gallery for a local sculptor/artist. That permission has been implemented.

The applicant's future business and artistic intentions have changed in terms of location and viability and he is now seeking an appropriate alternative use for this building which occupies a prominent location on the south-east side of the crossroads at Cripplestyle.

The existing building has a floor area of 154 square metres.

The Proposal

This application proposes an extension on the east elevation to facilitate its conversion into two holiday flats. The footprint is increased by 8 square metres and a first floor would be constructed above the extended single storey east wing. The addition of a first floor within the original part of the chapel does not require planning permission. Out of a total floor area

12 of 336 square metres there is, in effect, 68 square metres of new built floor space which is 20.2%.

The conversion will essentially retain the character of the building. Apart from the extension the only alterations will be the insertion of conservation style roof lights to provide light to the first floor unit and a deck at garden level where access is gained to the first floor flat.

There is a septic tank on the site which is shared with the adjacent house (the original Manse). It may not be large enough for this proposal. In these circumstances the application has been amended to include the installation of an additional septic tank.

There is a new gravel parking area on the south side of the building.

Policy Background

The site lies in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) as defined in the East Dorset Local Plan. There is no conflict with policy LSCON2 of the East Dorset Local Plan or the more general countryside criteria of policy CSIDE1. In this countryside location the development will be easily assimilated into the landscape as required by policy DES8 of the local plan.

Policy CSIDE 2 of the local plan refers to the acceptability of re-using existing buildings in the countryside for tourism purposes providing the change of use can take place without major reconstruction and involves a building of permanent and substantial construction. Part (b) of this policy states that the change of use and any associated works should not result in the loss of the building's character or integrity and part (e) requires the building the building to be of adequate size to accommodate the proposed use without the need for significant additions or extensions. This proposal satisfies these requirements. The definition of "significant" is not provided and the loss of character and integrity is subjective. Members need to consider this policy in context of the merits of the scheme.

Objection from Natural England

The application site lies close to (within 400m) heathland that forms part of the Cranborne Common SSSI. The site also lies in the vicinity of other heathlands that are notified SSSIs for the special interest of their heathland habitats and associated plant and animal species.

Much of the heathland SSSI area is part of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland bird species and is also part of a Ramsar site on account of rare or vulnerable heathland wetlands and associated rare wetland species.

Natural England has objected to the proposal. Notwithstanding that the application relates to the provision of holiday accommodation, it considers that the proposal “….is of a nature that, in its context with the European sites and the vulnerability of interest features to residential development effects, is likely to have a significant effect both in the SPA and the SAC, at least in combination with other plans and projects”.

Natural England also considers “…. it is likely to be exceptional where circumstances exist to be convinced that, in combination with other plans and projects, a residential use close to the European sites would not add to adverse pressures on the integrity of these sites. The application is for residential use in a location where there has been no former residential occupancy, and the effects should be considered alone and in combination with the effects of other development of all types that raise the types of effects arising from human domestic

13 occupancy of land. Having considered the circumstances of this case, including the information accompanying the application, we suggest exceptional circumstances do not exist”.

Natural England has not hitherto objected to holiday accommodation within this district. However, this is one of few applications submitted within 400m of a designated site.

Holiday accommodation is in essence a residential use albeit planning conditions often seek to restrict their occupancy to ensure that it is used for holidays only. Historically, conditions used to be imposed restricting the length of stay of any occupant, however, these no longer find favour with Planning Inspectors at appeal and conflict with the ‘Good Practice Guidance on Tourism’ produced by central government. Inspectors now seek to limit, where necessary the occupation of such dwellings to holiday use only and that they should “not be occupied as a person’s sole, or main place of residence”.

Indeed, it is noted from a letter from the applicant accompanying the application that;

“The inception and success of this conversion will depend on the planning department of EDDC not placing too restrictive covenants and conditions on the permission if granted, as it will seriously inhibit the commercial viability and sustainability of this project. An example of this is the importance of this building’s use during holiday periods including Christmas and New Year when important revenues are made. Restrictions of occupations during these important periods would, without doubt, make the site commercially unviable and make us unable to enact any of the positive principles we want to engage in, such as the quality of the accommodation offered and accessibility objectives”.

The applicant’s intention to maximise occupancy rates are fully understood. However, it could be argued that such occupancy rates (and therefore the impact on the surrounding heathland) would be little different from the permanent occupation of the two units proposed.

In a recent appeal decision (November 2010) received from Purbeck District Council against the refusal of 12 static caravans within 400m of Holton Heath, the Inspector noted that;

“…. research demonstrates that increased numbers of people in close proximity to Heathland create pressure on this fragile habitat causing degradation of the habitat and a reduction in protected species. While it is clear that this is difficult to quantify, it is my assessment that the additional population from the static holiday units must place some extra burden of recreational pressure on the nearby Heathland. These would be holiday units; the occupants would have plenty of free time, and a popular activity is likely to be enjoying the open air and a walk on the nearby Heathland”.

In determining that appeal the Inspector had to be certain whether, on the basis of the evidence available, it could be shown that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the European designated SPA, SAC and SSSI. Despite the arguments put forward she found that the appeal proposal would result in a greater population close to the protected heathland leading to associated recreational pressures on the habitat. As the Inspector could not be certain, as she must be, that the scheme would not cause harm to the integrity of the European site, the appeal was dismissed.

It is considered that a similar position exists with this application. Natural England objects to the proposal and your officers cannot be certain that, in combination with other plans and projects, this proposal would not cause harm to the integrity of the European site.

14 Concerns of local residents

The principal concerns of local residents are addressed below:

1. Proximity to heathland: See above.

2. A preference for an independent residential use: Has been consistently discouraged for sustainability and heathland reasons.

3. Tourism use: See above for policy background. Whilst this proposal does introduce a use which results in the occupation of the studio for habitation purposes rather than a low key business use any impact on local amenities would not warrant a rejection of this proposal. The units are conveniently sited for Salisbury, Cranborne Chase, The New Forest, Bournemouth and the coast. There is holiday accommodation in Woodlands and on the edge of Verwood which operate successfully without any immediately local attractions.

4. Overlooking: There is a 1.8 metre high fence and a hedgerow on the boundary with The Manse which lies immediately to the south. The land does rise behind the studio but the existing screening is sufficient to prevent direct overlooking into the garden of The Manse. The proposed decking on the east elevation leads directly onto the existing raised garden.

5. Traffic: There is no highway objection and the use as holiday accommodation would not add materially to use of the adjacent B3078 Alderholt to Cranborne road. There is a gravelled area for cars to park off the public highway within the site adjacent to the south elevation.

6. Refuse collection: There is no reason to assume that arrangements to store and collect refuse would give rise to problems or be handled any differently to any other property.

7. Design: With its use of conservation roof lights and extension on the east elevation which reflects the style and character of the original chapel there are no design issues which are considered to be inappropriate in this attractive part of the countryside which is a designated Area of Great Landscape Value.

8. Foul drainage: A new septic tank is proposed (see above).

The chapel has no existing roof space so no bat survey has been requested.

These concerns have been taken into account in assessing the merits of this application but do not suggest that there are grounds for recommending that planning permission should be refused for other than heathland reasons.

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

Reasons:

1 The site lies close to the Cranborne Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This site is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). It is also a Ramsar site.The proximity of this European Site (SPA, SAC and Ramsar) means that determination of this application must be undertaken with regard to the requirements of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, in particular Regulations 61, 62 and 66. The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the above Regulations that the proposals will cause no harm to the SPA, SAC and Ramsar heathland. The local planning authority, in carrying out an Appropriate Assessment, considers that the

15 proposed development would, in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to the heathland, be likely to have a significant effect on the SPA, SAC and Ramsar features. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to the recommendation of the Bern Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands as well as Environment policies A, B, C and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and policy NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan which seek to restrict developments which would result in the potential for increased use of, and damage to, nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest and particularly heathlands with a European Designation.

Informatives:

1 In determining this application the local planning authority has taken into account the advice which is set out by the Government in Planning Policy Statement 9 _Biodiversity and Geological Conservation" and The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism dated May 2006.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/10/0962/HOU

Proposal: Two Storey Rear Extension, Repairs and Renovations Detached Double Garage, Demolish Existing Lean-to and Detached Sheds.

Site Address: Honeysuckle Cottage, Grange, Wimborne, for Mr J Maidment

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Bournemouth International Airport Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km Consultation Area Green Belt LP Groundwater Source Protection Zone Groundwater Source Protection Zone Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area Listed Buildings NATS Technical Sites

Site Notice expired: 19 November 2010 Advert expired: 19 November 2010 Nbr-Nfn expired: 15 November 2010

Holt Parish Council No objection to the proposal to extend and renovate the Comments: cottage. However, we do object to the two storey double garage with dormer window which appears out of character with the traditional nature of the built environment. Concerns about potential future mis-use as it appears tantamount to a new dwelling. The work to the cottage is acceptable.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Design And No objection to revised plans. Conservation

County Highways Development No objection subject to the imposition of an access, Liaison Officer turning and parking condition.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr A & Mrs T Bowen 26 Object to rear dormer window to garage Grange, Wimborne We accept that cottage was in need of an extension and did not object to a rear 2 storey extension and garage being built, despite 3 windows overlooking our property and invading our privacy. We now strongly object to yet a further window being sited in the garage roof space. Due to the position of both the cottage and garage the outlook is over our property/garden. Garage appears to have a very high ridge, which seems to have exceeded Council guidelines. Bulk of garage together with the dormer would also have a large impact externally in a green belt area where originally the plot only had sheds/outbuildings of single storey. As per letter from Roger Wilkinson states "client would like to use this roof space for a garden room or home office". We do not believe that plan to make this space habitable was an afterthought of the owner. Two additional external walls have already been added to rear of garage to create a 4.5sq.m. washroom and toilet. Property has already been extended from a 2 bedroom, one bathroom property to a 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom property. Addition of a dormer window would change loft space of garage from storage to a domestic living space. This in addition to washroom downstairs, creates another bedroom and bathroom or potential for a self contained annexe. East Dorset Local Plan Chapter 6.103 points out that in the past large garages have later been developed into habitable rooms and this is not acceptable and is guarded against by the policy. If plans are passed it would set a precedent for future applications.

Officers Report:

The application is put to the Planning Committee as the Officer’s recommendation differs from the views of the Parish Council.

Site Description The property comprises a Grade II listed building located in a secluded position in Furzehill. The property is brick built under a thatched roof and appears largely unaltered, although it has been extended through a rear lean-to and larger side extension. This side extension has its own historic merit and comprises an ‘apple house’ and a stable. The property was in a poor state of repair and in need of attention. Currently the property is under refurbishment.

17 Planning History Listed Building Consent was granted (3/06/0970/LBC) to re-new the existing roof structure over both the cottage and apple house/stable and to re-build the chimney. The work had been part completed with the works to the main thatch and chimney undertaken in 2007.

Planning and Listed Building consent for the repair/partial rebuild and re-thatch of the rear lean-to extension was approved in 2007 (07/0811/LBC) and (07/1056FUL).

In 2008 a second set of applications for Planning and Listed Building consent for the repair/partial rebuild and re-thatch of the rear lean-to extension was approved (3/08/0559/FUL) and (3/08/0560/LBC). This consent also included the provison of a new timber garage in the rear garden.

Proposal Works to refurbish the cottage as approved in 2008 are currently being undertaken and nearing completion. A two bay timber garage has been constructed albeit not to the approved plans.

In effect this current application has been made to allow the Council to consider the unauthorised changes to the garage. These changes include the increase in the ridge height by 0.5m, the insertion of a floor at first floor level access by a stair and a small lean-to extension in which a toilet has been fitted.

The applicant initially wished to use the first floor space within the garage as a garden store and requested that a dormer window be added at a later date. After discussions with the Council’s Conservation Architect the dormer window has been removed from the proposal.

Considerations The submission is a dual application for planning and listed building consent.

As detailed above the works to refurbish and extend the cottage as previously approved are nearing completion and have according to the Council’s Conservation Architect been completed to a good standard. The key issue therefore is whether the changes to the garage will have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or setting of the grade II listed building.

The previously approved garage was timber built of green oak boarding over a brick plinth. This was to be finished in clay tile and stood 5.1m to ridge. A small lean-to to the rear provided a garden store; the roof was to be open for storage

The garage as now built stands at 5.6m, and has been finished in green oak boarding over a brick plinth. The roof space above has been converted to a windowless store accessed by an internal stair. To the rear a small extension has been added to provide a toilet.

Green Belt East Dorset Local Plan Policy GB3 states in relation to garages in the Green Belt that:

“GB3 (c) the size of any garage building must be commensurate with the replaced or extended property. Any space above ground floor should be limited to storage use only. Such space should not be capable of later conversion to residential use.”

The garage has already been constructed with a windowless upper room accessed by a stair, this is to be used as a garden store. It is considered that the increase in the overall ridge height of the garage by 0.5m is negligible and it would therefore be difficult to argue

18 that this increase had an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In order to ensure the garage continues to meet Policy GB3 a planning condition is recommended to ensure the space above the garage is used for storage purposes only and at no time for residential purpose. A further condition to preclude windows will also be added.

On this basis the proposal would not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt and could by supported under Policy GB3 of the EDLP.

Listed Building The works completed so far are to a high standard and have ensured that the property can be retained over the longer term. Given the position of the garage in relation to the listed building the increase in the height of the garage will not adversely affect the setting of the historic building. On this basis the proposal is considered in accordance with PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment)

Visual amenity and impact on neighbours Honeysuckle Cottage is sited in a substantial plot. The increase in the ridge height of the garage by 0.5m will not materially affect any other dwellings and will not adversely affect the visual amenities of the area, or the amenity of neighbours by way of overlooking or overshadowing. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policy DES8 and CSIDE1 of the EDLP.

Summary In summary the proposal will not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt and will complement the listed building. The proposal meets development plan policy and guidance contained within PPG3 (Green Belts) and PPS 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

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

Conditions/Reasons:

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

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

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

06 31 3 C 06 31 4 C 06 31 5 D (29 November 2010)

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

3 The accommodation formed at first floor level above the garage shall be used for the purpose of storage only, and for no other purpose including residential accommodation.

Reason: In order to ensure that further residential accommodation is not formed that would be considered contrary to Green Belt Policy.

19 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration or door shall be installed at first floor level (such expression to include the roof) without express planning permission.

Reason: To ensure that the upper floor is not used for residential purposes contrary to development plan policy.

5 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 maintained and be kept available for that purpose at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Informatives:

1 In considering this application the Council have paid regard to guidance contained within PPG2 (Green Belts) and PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/10/0963/LBC

Proposal: Two Storey Rear Extension, Repairs and Renovations Detached Double Garage, Demolish Existing Lean-to and Detached Sheds.

Site Address: Honeysuckle Cottage, Grange, Wimborne, for Mr J Maidment

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km Consultation Area Green Belt LP

Site Notice expired: 19 November 2010 Advert expired: 19 November 2010 Nbr-Nfn expired: 15 November 2010

Consultee Responses: County Highways No objection subject to the imposition of an access, turning Development Liaison Officer and parking condition.

EDDC Design And No objection to revised plans. Conservation

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

The application is put to the Planning Committee as the Officer’s recommendation differs from the views of the Parish Council.

21 Planning History Listed Building Consent was granted (3/06/0970/LBC) to re-new the existing roof structure over both the cottage and apple house/stable and to re-build the chimney. The work had been part completed with the works to the main thatch and chimney undertaken in 2007.

Planning and Listed Building consent for the repair/partial rebuild and re-thatch of the rear lean-to extension was approved in 2007 (07/0811/LBC) and (07/1056FUL).

Proposal Works to refurbish the cottage as approved in 2008 are currently being undertaken and nearing completion. A two bay timber garage has been constructed albeit not to the approved plans.

Considerations The submission is a dual application for planning and listed building consent.

Green Belt East Dorset Local Plan Policy GB3 states in relation to garages in the Green Belt that:-

22 that this increase had an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In order to ensure the garage continues to meet Policy GB3 a planning condition is recommended to ensure the space above the garage is used for storage purposes only and at no time for residential purpose. A further condition to preclude windows will also be added.

On this basis the proposal would not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt and could by supported under Policy GB3 of the EDLP.

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

Conditions/Reasons:

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

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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

06 31 3 C 06 31 4 C 06 31 5 D (29 November 2010)

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

Informatives:

1 In considering this application the Council have paid regard to guidance contained within PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

23 Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/10/0997/FUL

Proposal: Erect Glazed Swimming Pool Cover

Site Address: Dumpton School , Deans Grove, WImborne, for

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Bournemouth International Airport Bournemouth International Airport Conservation Area Heathland 5km Consultation Area Green Belt LP Groundwater Source Protection Zone Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Wildlife Constraint

Site Notice expired: 20 November 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: N/A

Colehill Parish Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the proposal represents inappropriate development in the green belt, and the Officer recommendation is for approval.

The proposal is to construct a glazed single storey cover, 12.7m wide and 21.6m in length (max height 3m), over the existing outdoor swimming pool at this school in the green belt. The site also lies in the countryside outside any urban area or village infill policy envelope.

The proposal represents inappropriate development in the green belt for the purposes of Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts 1995, and to be acceptable, the applicant is required to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the green belt by inappropriateness.

The new cover will sit in a courtyard area with buildings on three sides, and it will not be visible from the nearest public road at Deans Grove to the west This is because its overall height will be less than that of the buildings surrounding it, and the buildings will screen it from public views.

As the cover is to be adjacent to existing buildings and will effectively be screened by them on three sides, no adverse impact on the rural character of the countryside will result. Policy CSIDE1 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 is therefore complied with.

24 The impact of the cover on the visual amenities of the green belt will be minimal due to the screening provided by existing buildings, and position immediately adjacent to them.

Very special circumstances

The applicant's agent has stated that the existing outdoor swimming pool is an environmentally unsustainable feature of the school. This is because the pool has a high energy consumption arising from heating it, and high water consumption through evaporation. The pupils can only benefit from using the pool in late spring, summer and early autumn, and for the remaining part of the year, pupils are taken by minibus to swim elsewhere. These trips are numerous when spread over the year groups of pupils, and represent a significant amount of vehicle trips.

Therefore the proposal will greatly reduce the number of mini-bus trips and the energy consumption from heating and cleaning will be reduced in addition to reduced water consumption by reducing evaporation. The proposal will reduce the school's carbon footprint accordingly.

These advantages are considered to represent very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the green belt arising from inappropriateness, and the advice contained in PPG2 is complied with, in addition to reducing vehicle trips in line with government guidance.

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 the determination of the application, regard was had to the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (1995).

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/10/1015/HOU

Proposal: Two Storey Extension

Site Address: 11 Liederbach Drive, Verwood, Dorset, for Mr G Thomas

25 Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 400m Consultation Area Urban Areas LP

Site Notice expired: 25 November 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 17 November 2010

Verwood Town Council Objection. Detrimental to neighbouring properties because Comments: of mass and bulk.

Consultee Responses: Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

The property is put to the Committee as the Officer’s Recommendation is at variance to the views of the Town Council

Site Description The property comprises a house with a detached single garage to the rear. The property has previously been extended by way of a side conservatory. The neighbouring property to the north, no.15 Liederbach Drive, presents a flank wall with no windows.

Proposal It is proposed to create a first floor extension to the rear that will oversail a walkway and sit on top the garage. This will be lit by a single window facing north east. The extension will be clad in clay tile under a concrete tiled roof.

Considerations The key considerations are the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the neighbour at No. 15 Liederbach Drive, and secondly the impact in the character of the area.

The Town Council raise concerns as to the impact of the mass and bulk of the extension on the neighbouring property. In response, the proposal is to be formed in a gap between two properties. The neighbouring property’s flank wall has no windows and as such there can be no loss of light, overlooking or overmassing. A refusal on this basis could not be sustained.

The proposal extension is acceptable in terms of its size, scale and design and as this is situated behind the property there will be not adverse impact on the residential character of the area or streetscene. There will be no impact on trees or bats.

Summary The proposal is viewed as in accordance with Policy DES8 of the EDLP.

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

Conditions/Reasons:

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

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

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

Proposed Extension 1:50, 1:100

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

3 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.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration or door shall be installed at first floor level (such expression to include the roof) without express planning permission.

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons

6. Appendices 6.1 None.

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