Borough of Poole Planning Committee 18 July 2013

BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 JULY 2013

000BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

18 JULY 2013

The Meeting commenced at 1:00pm and concluded at 2:35pm

Present:

Councillor Eades (Chairman) Councillor Pawlowski (Vice-Chairman) Councillors Mrs Clements, Mrs Haines (substitute for Councillor Burden), Parker, Potter, Mrs Wilson, Wilson and Woodcock

Others in attendance:

Councillor Mrs Thomas

Members of the public present: Approximately 9

The Team Leader (Regulatory) advised members of the public of the domestic arrangements, including the fact that the filming and/or recording of the Meeting’s proceedings was not permitted.

PC 22.13 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brown and Burden.

PC 23.13 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

Other Non-Statutory Interests Members Wished to be recorded

Councillors Parker and Pawlowski had been lobbied on Plans List Item No.2.

Councillor Pawlowski had been lobbied on Plans List Item No.3.

Councillor Parker had been lobbied on Plans List Item No.6.

Councillor Mrs Haines stated that she had been closely involved with the Objectors to Plans List Item No.3 and, as a result, felt that she had predetermined the matter and would therefore withdraw from the Meeting for that Item following making her representation as Ward Councillor.

PC 24.13 MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Committee, held on 20 June 2013, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chairman.

1 BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 JULY 2013

PC 25.13 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered the Planning Applications as set out in the Schedule to the Minutes and dealt with therein.

PC26.13 PLANNING APPEALS RECEIVED AND PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

The Information Report was noted.

PC27.13 SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS, IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRENT CONSIDERATION

There was no urgent business.

The Chairman used this opportunity to inform Members of the opportunity for two Members of the Planning Committee to attend a one day training course organised by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). It was noted that the Team Manager, Borough Team, would email Members with further details.

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 18 JULY 2013

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO 01 APPLICATION NO. APP/13/00566/R APPLICATION TYPE Reserved Matters SITE ADDRESS Former Pilkingtons Tiles Ltd Site, Blandford Road, Poole, BH15 4AR PROPOSALS Reserved Matters Application following Outline Approval APP/11/01246/P to erect 82 dwellings and 2no. B1 units. (Phase 1) REGISTERED 14 May 2013 APPLICANT Inland Homes plc WARD Hamworthy East CASE OFFICER Caroline Palmer

The Application was brought before the Committee as the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services did not consider it prudent to exercise delegated powers due to the significance of the Proposal.

Caroline Palmer, Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to the Site plans as appended to the Report.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, amended plans and a response from the Head of Transportation Services.

The Planning Officer referred to Architect’s plans and 3D CGI images of the Proposal as contained in the separate plans document.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, community consultation, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the issues addressed by the Reserve Matters Application (detailed design, landscape and drainage strategy) had been considered in the light of the agreed parameters for the Outline Approval and the Development Plan. The Proposals were considered to comply with the provisions of the relevant policies within the Core Strategy and the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD, for the reasons set out in the Planning Considerations section of the Report.

Mr Corcoran, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

 Agreed with the Case Officer’s Report  This was the first phase of the development

 Keen to implement the first tranche of regeneration  Had worked very closely with Planning and Regeneration Services  The Proposal was the result of a long and careful design process  It would be a high quality scheme  Landscaping was important to the Applicant  Had taken a great deal of care in consulting with the Community  Only one response/representation from the public

The Team Leader (Regulatory) read out a brief representation from Ward Councillor White, details included:

 Congratulated Inland Homes on its level of public engagement  Only one representation from the Community  Very happy to support the Scheme

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

 The siting and number of extractor fans in the apartments were a matter for Building Regulations and legislation at the time of construction.  The roads in the Development were designed under “Home Zones”

A Member stated that she fully approved of the Scheme, and particularly welcomed the proposed play areas, pitched roofs and the mix of paving.

A Member stated that he thought the design was excellent, however, he felt the proposed layout of properties would have benefitted from a community heating system.

Mr Corcoran summed up his views, details included:

 The Applicant would take direct control of the maintenance of landscaping  Very keen to “kick-start” the regeneration of the area

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the following Conditions:

1. GN030 (Sample of Materials) Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials to be used shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority before any on-site works in relation to phase 1 commence. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason - To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory and in accordance with Policies PCS23A and PCS5(v) of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009).

2. GN060 (Specimen Panel of Brickwork)

3. PL01 (Plans Listing)

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

Drawing number: 1297-D4050-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4100-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4105-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4200-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4201-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4202-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4203-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4205-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4206-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4207-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4208-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D3209-rev01 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4210-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4211-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4212-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4215-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4216-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4217-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4220-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4221-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4222-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4225-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4226-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4227-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D42278-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4230-rev00 received 18/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4231-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4232-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4235-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4236-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4237-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4240-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4241-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4242-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4243-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4245-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4246-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4247-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4248-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4250-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4251-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4252-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4255-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4256-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4257-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4260-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4261-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4262-rev00 received 14/05/2013

Drawing number: 1297-D4263-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4265-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4266-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4267-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4270-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4271-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4272-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4700-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4701-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4703-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4702-rev01 received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D3705-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4706-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D3707-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4708-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D3710-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4715-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4716-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D3720-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4721-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4725-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4726-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4730-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4731-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4732-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4740-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D3741-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D3745-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4746-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4750-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4751-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4755-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4756-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4760-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4765-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4766-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4770-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4771-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4775-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1297-D4776-rev00 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: 1606/P/01 received 14/05/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 11 received 29/05/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 12 received 29/05/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 13 received 29/05/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 14B received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 15 received 29/05/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 16 received 29/05/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 17 received 29/05/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 18A received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 19A received 15/07/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 20A received 15/07/2013

Drawing number: INL18560 21 received 29/05/2013 Drawing number: INL18560 22 received 29/05/2013 Drawing number: INLE3816/513 received 15/07/2013 Drainage Report KMR/INL/E3816/11442C dated May 2013

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

Informative Notes

1. IN01 (Reserved Matters Requiring FurtherDetail) The applicant is informed that this decision constitutes an approval of Reserved Matters for phase 1 only as described in the decision and does not itself constitute a grant of planning permission. This decision must be construed in the context of the outline planning permission APP/11/01246/P to which the Reserved Matters relate, the conditions of which remain in full force and effect except so far as satisfied by this or other Reserved Matters approvals.

2. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; - offering a pre-application advice service, and - advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the applicant was advised of issues after the initial Site Visit - in this case the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and this was reflected in the proposals - in this case the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit amendments to the scheme which addressed issues that had been identified - the application was considered and approved without delay

Voting: For – Unanimous ______

ITEM NO 02 APPLICATION NO. APP/13/00409/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 3 Durrant Road, Poole, BH14 8TP PROPOSALS Demolish existing dwelling and erect two detached dwellings. REGISTERED 8 April, 2013 APPLICANT Seven Developments Ltd WARD Penn Hill CASE OFFICER Emma MacWilliam

The Application was brought before the Committee due to a red card being issued by Councillor Ms Atkinson, at the property owner’s request.

The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 18 July 2013, which commenced at 10:30am and concluded at 10:50am. Councillors Eades, Pawlowski, Mrs Clements, Mrs Haines, Parker, Potter, Mrs Wilson, Wilson and Woodcock,were in attendance.

Emma MacWilliam, Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to the Site plans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, details of the amended plans, and an additional reason for refusal and an amended Informative Note.

Mr Burnand, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

 Welcomed the Case Officer’s Report and recommendation.  Cared about the area.  Proposals were out of context with the area.  Loss of landscaping.  Gardens would be too small for family use.  Proposals would result in a loss of privacy.  Plot could not support two properties of this style and size.  Contrary to the Core Strategy.  Quoted PCS5  Adverse effect on street parking  Parking issues should be another reason or refusal.

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

 As the Proposal was on a corner plot, Officers had to view the street scene from both Durrant Road and Corfe View Road.  Reference was made on the screen where vegetation and landscaping would be removed in order to facilitate the Development  The Planning Officer referred to Page 24 of the Report where reference to the building line was addressed.

Ward Councillor Parker stated that the Proposals would have a serious impact on neighbouring properties and the street scene.

A Member stated that the properties were well designed, however, they were proposed for the wrong site.

Mr Burnand did not exercise his right to sum up.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Refused for the following reasons:

1. RR000 (Non Standard Reason) Due to the siting, footprint, overall scale, size and resultant mass of the proposed houses the scheme would create a cramped form of development out of character with properties in the surrounding area. Furthermore due to the amount of glazing to the rear serving living rooms, excavations proposed,

8 BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 JULY 2013 the significant change in levels between the two properties and the proximity to the rear boundary and property at No.1 Durrant Road, the scheme would not provide an appropriate level of amenity or privacy for the occupants in the houses and a reciprocal impact of loss of privacy would be experienced by the occupiers of No.1 Durrant Road. The houses would also appear unduly overbearing when viewed from private amenity areas and windows of No.1 Durrant Road. The proposals are therefore contrary to PCS05 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009 and DM01 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2012.

2. RR000 (Non Standard Reason) Due to the footprint of the houses, their siting within the plots and their proximity to the Durrant Road boundary and level of excavation the proposal would result in the loss of landscaping, harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The resultant 3 storey houses and their prominent corner plot siting would appear out of scale and unduly prominent particularly when viewed from Durrant Road. The siting of the house close to the Durrant Road boundary and loss of property frontage onto Durrant Road would be out of keeping with the rhythm of development and harmful to the balance of landscape and built form that currently exists. As such the proposal would be in conflict with policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009 and supported in its aims and outcomes by the Borough of Poole Characterisation study and DM01 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2012.

3. The proposed shallow roof design of the house on Plot 1 would appear disproportionate to the overall size and scale of the rest of the building to the detriment of its external appearance and the visual amenity of the streetscene. The proposals are therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS23 of the Core Strategy (adopted February 2009) and DM1 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted April 2012).

Informative Notes

1. IN73 (Working with applicants: Refusal) In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by; - offering a pre-application advice service, and - advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions - In this case the applicant did not take the opportunity to enter into pre- application discussions - In this case the applicant was advised how the proposal did not accord with the Development Plan, and that no material considerations were apparent that would outweigh these matters - In this case it was not considered that there were any amendments that could be suggested to make the scheme more acceptable - In this case the applicant and BoP have worked together to minimise the reasons for refusal

2. IN76 (List of Plans Refused) The development is hereby refused in accordance with the following plans:

Drawing Number 1305-PA-01 entitled 'Proposed Site Layout and Floor Plans' drawn by Tigers Eye Architecture & Design Practice dated 25.03.13 and received and date stamped 17th July 2013 Drawing Number 1305-PA-02 Revision A1 entitled 'Proposed Elevations' drawn by Tigers Eye Architecture & Design Practice dated 25.03.13 and received and date stamped 17th July 2013 Drawing Number 1305-PA-03 entitled 'Existing Layout and Elevations' drawn by Tigers Eye Architecture & Design Practice dated 25.03.13 and received and date stamped 8th April 2013.

3. IN75 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Refusal) The applicant is advised that if this application had been acceptable in all other respects, the scheme would be Liable to the Community Infrastructure Levy Schedule which became a material planning consideration on 2nd January 2013. Therefore, if this decision is appealed and subsequently granted planning permission at appeal, this scheme will be liable to pay the Council’s CIL upon commencement of development.

ITEM NO 03 APPLICATION NO. APP/13/00681/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 3 Grasmere Road, Poole, BH13 7RH PROPOSALS Demolish existing and erect 2no. detached dwellings (Revised Scheme) REGISTERED 12 June, 2013 APPLICANT Seven Developments Ltd AGENT Tigers Eye Architects WARD Canford Cliffs CASE OFFICER Darryl Howells

Due to the declared predetermination, Councillor Mrs Haines withdrew from the Committee seating area and took her place in the Public Gallery.

The Application was brought before the Committee by Councillor Mrs Haines due to concerns about using a footpath for vehicular access to properties.

The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit, which commenced at 11:35am and concluded at 11:55am. Councillors Eades, Pawlowski, Mrs Clements, Mrs Haines, Parker, Potter, Woodcock, Mrs Wilson and Wilson were in attendance.

Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, details of an additional representation and a response from Natural England.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the Scheme delivered two dwellings in a manner that would not harm the character and appearance of the area or the distinctive features that characterised it. The area had seen significant renewal and replacement of dwellings that had resulted in a varied appearance.

June Topham, Objector, expressed her views, details included:

 Represented Sandbanks Residents’ Association  Small plot with no side garage space  There would be no room to walk from the front to the back of the Site to access footpath  Public footpath was in constant use  Local residents used the path  Cars were not normally allowed to park on public footpaths  The Head of Transportation Services had objected to the previous Approved Scheme  Proposal was detrimental to Highway Safety  Quoted PCS15, 26 and DM1, 7 and 8  Not enough room for a fourth car in the Lane

Ward Councillor Mrs Haines exercised her right to make a representation, details included:

 Access to Footpath No.83 was of concern  Area around Footpath might be used as overflow parking  If minded to Approve, a Condition should be added prohibiting cars blocking the Footpath  No such thing as a precedent in Planning

Due to the declared predetermination, Ward Councillor Mrs Haines withdrew from the Committee Suite and took no part in the voting on this Application.

Ward Councillor Pawlowski expressed his views, details included:

 Principle had been established for two properties on the Plot  There was already parking at the rear  Parking proposals complied with Borough of Poole Policy  Proposals were sympathetic with the emerging character of the Area  Properties would look attractive and was minded to support the Application

A Member agreed with Ward Councillor Pawlowski. She stated that the design was “clever”, very attractive and was appealing to look at.

A Member stated that it was a “good Application”, however, he had some concerns regarding the Footpath at the rear.

A Member stated that he found the Site Visit extremely valuable and as a result, felt that the land was being used in a sensible way and the Scheme would match the emerging character of the Area.

The Chairman agreed that the Site Visit was helpful. He added that he doubted that at present the Footpath was well used as he had never seen tree branches so low over a Designated Footpath.

June Topham summed up her views, details included:

 The Site already suffered from unwanted parking, the Proposal would only exacerbate the situation.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted with CIL Contribution and the following Conditions:

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))

3. GN030 (Sample of Materials)

4. GN020 (Screen Fencing/Walling)

5. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Prior to the commencement of development details of the measures and practices to be integrated in to the construction of the buildings and processes during construction to ensure an energy efficient and sustainable development is delivered shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those measures shall undertaken best endeavours to achieve level 3 of the Code for Sustainable homes and where Level 3 can not be achieved indicated the reasons why. The agreed details shall then be implemented and retained, unless with prior written approval of the LPA to any alternative.

Reason: In the interests of delivering a sustainable scheme and reducing reliance on centralised energy supply and in accordance with Policies PCS31, PCS32 and PCS35 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009 and advice contained within PPS1, Supplement to PPS1 and PPS22. 6. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)

7. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays)

8. DR060 (Flood Protection)

9. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) 1 tree, of a size and species and in a location to be agreed in writing with the

Local Planning Authority, shall be planted in accordance with BS3936 (Parts 1 and 4), BS4043 and BS4428 in the earliest planting season following implementation of this permission. The tree shall be thereafter maintained for a period of five years including the replacement of any tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it, which die, are removed or become damaged or diseased within this period with tree of a similar size and of the same species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the tree(s) have been planted so that compliance with the condition can be confirmed.

Reason - In order to preserve the visual amenities which at present exist on the site and to ensure that as far as possible the work is carried to current best practice, in accordance with Policy PCS5(ii) (v) of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February 2009 and DM1 (ii) and (iii) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

10. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition)

11. GN170 (Screening to Balcony - General) An obscure glazed screen of a form sufficient to prevent external views of at least 1.8 metres in height shall be erected along the edges of the terraces positioned to the rear of the houses hereby approved as marked on the approved plan. The screen shall be erected prior to the commencement of use of the balcony, hereby permitted, and shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason - In the interests of privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties and in accordance with DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; - offering a pre-application advice service, and - advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the applicant was advised of issues after the initial Site Visit - in this case the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit amendments to the scheme which addressed issues that had been identified - the application was considered and approved without delay

2. IN62 (Summary of Reasons for Decision) Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)

(England) Order 2010

The proposed development has been tested against the following policies of the Development Plan, including planning legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework, and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, is not in conflict with the following policies:

Policies PCS05, PCS23 and DM1 The proposed scheme seeks full planning permission to demolish the bungalow and erect a pair of detached, 3 bedroom dwellings, the architecture language being contemporary and offering private amenity areas to the rear of the houses. The area is residential in character and therefore the proposal is acceptable. The supporting information suggests a building designed to have the appearance of a single dwelling to maintain the character and appearance of the area, whilst providing 2 dwellings.

The layout of the building on the plot would respect the character of the area and the proposed architecture will reflect that of the buildings recently constructed at nos. 5 & 7 Grasmere Road. As such, it is considered that the proposed development accords with the emerging character and appearance, and will positively contribute to the local distinctiveness of the area. .

Policy PCS34 The building would be raised above the surrounding ground levels in a similar fashion to the neighbouring property at nos.5 & 7. This places the finished floor levels at 3.55m AOD, approximately 1.5m above the level of the road in front of the site.

Whilst this raised position would appear odd, it would not be at odds with the emerging pattern of development required to defend the properties from rising sea levels and the impact of floods occurring over the lifetime of the development (100 years for residential development). Furthermore the height and roof form proposed, would fit to the context of the neighbouring properties

Policies DM8 & SPD1 (Parking & Highway Layout in Development) The frontage area would be divided between 2 parking spaces and an area of amenity space. To the frontage a semi-mature tree will be planted (secured by condition) to soften the harden exterior of the building and its landscaping. To the rear, there will be amenity spaces provided to meet the reasonable needs of the occupiers. Beyond the rear gardens, 2 further spaces are positioned (in addition to the existing garage), access off an existing lane, used by vehicular traffic.

The layout makes provision for 4 parking spaces between the 2 houses which accord with the new parking SPD. In the area around the junction with Salter Road and in front of the site, parking is restricted by yellow lines. There are parking bays identified on all roads within a short walk of the site, to try and prevent the inconsiderate anti-social parking caused

14 BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 JULY 2013 during periods of high demand in the summer.

Access to the site is similar to the existing arrangement. At present there appears to be sufficient room to park and turn 2 cars on the site, entering and leaving in a forward gear. The proposed scheme places 2 parking spaces at the front of the site, behind the pavement, requiring the road for manoeuvring space. As an unclassified road, with parking restrictions on either side, visibility is unlikely to be impeded and therefore highway safety would be maintained. Access to the garage at the rear is existing it is assumed that the owner enjoys rights across the lane from Grasmere Road. Whilst there are several properties with garages, the lane does not display signs of regular use, being overgrown and sufficient parking available at the front of the site for a single household. No objection has been received from Transportation services to the proposal based on the likely increase in the use of the rear access and there is no indication that there would a conflict with pedestrian movements to raise a significant concern.

Policies PCS31 & PCS32 The proposed dwellings will be constructed to achieve level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Policies PCS36, PCS37 & PCS28 The scheme's financial contributions will be secured by the Community Infrastructure Levy, so mitigation is provided to meet recognised needs arising from this development.

3. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations

The proposed development referred to in this planning permission is a chargeable development liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL Regulations (amended).

In accordance with CIL Regulation 65, Borough of Poole will issue a Liability Notice in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission as soon as practicable after the day on which planning permission first permits development. The Liability Notice will confirm the chargeable amount for the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission and will be calculated by Borough of Poole in accordance with CIL Regulation 40 (amended) and in respect of the relevant CIL rates set out in the adopted Borough of Poole Charging Schedule. Please note that the chargeable amount payable in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission is a local land charge.

For information purposes, Borough of Poole reserves the right to issue a Liability Notice in respect of chargeable development as soon as is practicable following the grant of planning permission, but before the

15 BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 JULY 2013 time on which that planning permission first permits development (the definition of when planning permission first permits development for the purposes of CIL is set out in CIL Regulation 8). However, any earlier Liability Notice issued by Borough of Poole in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission ceases to have effect at the point a subsequent (by date) Liability Notice in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission is issued by Borough of Poole.

Please be aware that failure to pay CIL in accordance with the CIL Regulations and Council’s payment procedure upon commencement of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission may result in the Council imposing surcharges and taking enforcement action. Further details on the Council’s CIL process including the assuming, withdrawing and transferring liability to pay CIL, claiming relief, the payment procedure, consequences of not paying CIL in accordance with the payment procedure and appeals can be found on the Borough of Poole website: http://www.boroughofpoole.com/planning-and- buildings/planning/ldf/community-infrastructure-levycommunity- infrastructure-levy/

Voting: For – Unanimous

Councillor Mrs Haines rejoined the Meeting.

______

ITEM NO 04 APPLICATION NO. APP/13/00481/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 40 Sopers Lane, Poole, BH17 7ES PROPOSALS Extend to east of 40 Sopers Lane to create additional dwelling REGISTERED 24 April, 2013 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Lawrence AGENT Maughan Architecture WARD Creekmoor CASE OFFICER James Larson

The Application was brought before the Committee due to the proximity of the Site to a Councillor’s home.

James Larson, Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to the Site plans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the relevant planning history, consultations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed dwelling would contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area, respect the privacy

16 BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 JULY 2013 and amenity of existing properties and would provide adequate on-site parking and access.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted With CIL Contribution and subject to the following Conditions:

2. GN040 (Match Materials to the Existing Building)

3. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted)

4. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3)

5. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)

6. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition)

7. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Prior to development commencing, a visual inspection by suitably qualified and experienced persons holding the appropriate, necessary license shall be carried out and the findings reported to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. Where evidence of species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are concluded details of the timing and method of proposed rescue, protection and relocation of protected species shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall be subsequently carried out in strict accordance with the agreed details of methodology and programme.

Reason - To ensure the protection and rescue of species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Habitats Regulations and the Berne Convention and in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; - offering a pre-application advice service, and - advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and this was reflected in the proposals - in this case the application was acceptable as submitted and no modification or further assistance was required

- the application was considered and approved without delay

2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations

The proposed development referred to in this planning permission is a chargeable development liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL Regulations (amended).

In accordance with CIL Regulation 65, Borough of Poole will issue a Liability Notice in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission as soon as practicable after the day on which planning permission first permits development. The Liability Notice will confirm the chargeable amount for the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission and will be calculated by Borough of Poole in accordance with CIL Regulation 40 (amended) and in respect of the relevant CIL rates set out in the adopted Borough of Poole Charging Schedule. Please note that the chargeable amount payable in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission is a local land charge.

For information purposes, Borough of Poole reserves the right to issue a Liability Notice in respect of chargeable development as soon as is practicable following the grant of planning permission, but before the time on which that planning permission first permits development (the definition of when planning permission first permits development for the purposes of CIL is set out in CIL Regulation 8). However, any earlier Liability Notice issued by Borough of Poole in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission ceases to have effect at the point a subsequent (by date) Liability Notice in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission is issued by Borough of Poole.

Please be aware that failure to pay CIL in accordance with the CIL Regulations and Council’s payment procedure upon commencement of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission may result in the Council imposing surcharges and taking enforcement action. Further details on the Council’s CIL process including the assuming, withdrawing and transferring liability to pay CIL, claiming relief, the payment procedure, consequences of not paying CIL in accordance with the payment procedure and appeals can be found on the Borough of Poole website: http://www.boroughofpoole.com/planning-and- buildings/planning/ldf/community-infrastructure-levycommunity- infrastructure-levy/

3. IN00 (Non Standard Informative) This site or part of this site may have restrictive covenants where the Borough of Poole is beneficiary and as such, the applicant needs to be aware that any decision which grants planning permission to the applicant does not also grant the Borough of Poole's consent to the modification of the covenants. This will need to be considered separately by The Estates Team of Asset Management & Property Services and this should be made clear to the

18 BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 JULY 2013 applicants.

ITEM NO 05 APPLICATION NO. APP/13/00508/F APPLICATION TYPE Householder SITE ADDRESS 2 Thwaite Road, Poole, BH12 1HY PROPOSALS Demolish existing garage, erect new double garage to front with improved access. Resubmission of revised scheme. REGISTERED 30 April, 2013 APPLICANT Mr Haberfield AGENT Plan-It WARD Branksome East CASE OFFICER Darryl Howells

The Application was brought before the Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Rampton due to a request from a resident.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site Visit on 18 July 2013, which commenced at 11:00am and concluded at 11:20am. Councillors Eades, Pawlowski, Mrs Clements, Mrs Haines, Parker, Potter, Mrs Wilson, Wilson and Woodcock were in attendance.

Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to the Site plans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the relevant planning history, representations, planning considerations and judgement. Details and images of previous refused Applications were displayed for Members’ information.

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed garage, by reason of its design, scale, bulk, mass, siting and layout would have a detrimental impact upon the street scene of Thwaite Road and Coy Pond Road and would fail to compliment the character and appearance of the Site and surrounding area.

Mr Haberfield and Ms Covernton, speaking in favour of the Application, expressed their views, details included:

 Design of garage retained a flat roof, not a pitched roof  Had submitted two previous applications  Proposal would provide an additional parking space  On advice of the Local Planning Authority had included soft landscaping  Requested that Members looked at the street scene as a whole  Proposal would ease parking pressures  No objections from neighbours  Proposal complimented the Area

 Proposal enhanced the character of the Property  Requested that Members approve the Scheme  Ms Covernton lived at No.8 Thwaite Road and stated that if she thought the Proposal was out of character she would have objected  Properties needed to be able to cater for life in the 21st Century

Ward Councillor Mrs Thomas expressed her views, details included:

 Application fitted well within the street scene  Garage would be built with reclaimed red bricks  Soft landscaping had been introduced into the design  Proposal was in line with other garages in Coy Pond  Houses of this size should have a garage to house modern cars  No objection from residents  Requested that Members give careful consideration to the Application  Both Ward Councillors fully supported of the Scheme

The Senior Planning Officer responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

 The height of the ballustrading on top of the garage was approximately 1.2 metres high  Landscaping on top of the Garage roof was in planters  On inspection of the Plans, there seemed to be provision for waste bins

A Member stated that when considering the Application, the most important aspect was its effect on the street scene. He added that in the Road there were bulky concrete retaining walls and, as a consequence, he felt the proposed garage was not out of character. He added that he could not agree with the Case Officer’s conclusion.

A Member stated that, in her opinion, the Proposal was an improvement on the existing.

The Chairman stated that, in his opinion, the Case Officer had come to the wrong decision as there was no prevailing pattern in the street scene. He added that it was important to note that there had been no objections from neighbours.

Mr Haberfield summed up his views, details included:

 There was provision for waste bins either side of the garage  Garage would be built from reclaimed bricks  Would make sure that the Garage would match the House

On being put to the Vote, the Officer recommendation to refuse was LOST.

Voting: Against – Unanimous

The Committee continued by discussing Conditions for Approval, including:

 Standard time expiry condition  Sample materials  Garage needed to remain available for its purpose

RESOLVED, contrary to Officer recommendation, to grant Planning approval, subject to:

1.The development to which this permission relates shall 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 the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.Details and samples of all external facing materials including the balustrading to be used shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority before any on-site works commence. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason - To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009).

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

Elevations/ Sections Plans as Proposed (drawing number 011/001/03D received 30th April 2013) Site Plan & Floor Plan as Proposed (drawing number 011/001/02C received 30th April 2013) Proposed Soft Landscape Layout (drawing number E5865 received 30th April 2013)

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

4.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, the garage, hereby approved, shall be kept available and retained for the storage of motor vehicles and shall not be converted into living accommodation without planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy PCS5 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policy DM7 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted April 2012).

ITEM NO 06 APPLICATION NO. APP/13/00499/F APPLICATION TYPE Householder SITE ADDRESS 12 Drew Close, Poole, BH12 5ET PROPOSALS Two bedroomed first floor extension over existing garage and kitchen REGISTERED 26 April, 2013 APPLICANT Mr T Goldsmith WARD Branksome East CASE OFFICER Caroline Palmer

The Application was brought before the Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Thomas due to residents’ concerns about overdevelopment, access to the road and potential parking issues.

Caroline Palmer, Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to the Site plans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site.

Reference was made to the relevant planning history, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed extension complied with the provisions of the relevant policies in the Core Strategy and the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD, by virtue of its scale, design, location and use.

Mr Wright, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

 Concerned with the number of bedrooms, the Property could be used for Student accommodation  Access was very narrow for cars, with more cars, it could result in Residents not being able to gain access or exit their properties  More bedrooms would result in more cars  Could be a problem with emergency vehicle access  Potential risk of fire from fuel in vehicles  Broken down vehicles had blocked access in the past.

Mrs Goldsmith, Applicant, expressed her views, details included:

 Needed to extend the Property to accommodate Parent  Net gain of extension would be just one bedroom  One of only a few homes in the area yet to be extended  Property already had provision to accommodate up to 6 vehicles  Broken down van was nothing to do with her  Other neighbours were happy with the Proposal.

Ward Councillor Mrs Thomas expressed her views, details included:

 Had real concerns regarding Multiple Occupancy  Size of Property would have an adverse impact on the Area  Property could be used as Student Accommodation  Must respect residents’ privacy  Access/safety must not be compromised

In response to a request for clarification, Doug Evans, Team Manager, summarised the Article 4 Direction regarding Homes of Multiple Occupancy.

A Member stated that in his opinion, there would not be a parking problem and overlooking was not an issue.

The Chairman agreed with the Member’s remarks and reminded the Committee that, as the Team Manager had explained, the Property could not be used as a Home of Multiple Occupancy without additional Planning Permission.

Mr Wright, summed up his views, details included:

 Cars breaking down in the access would be a problem  On occasion had been unable to exit his property

Mrs Goldsmith summed up her views, which included:

 Neighbours had Building Company with large trucks, however, never had a problem with blocking the Road.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the following Conditions:

2. GN050 (Matching Materials)

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; - offering a pre-application advice service, and - advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions.

- in this case the application was acceptable as submitted and no modification or further assistance was required.

Voting: For - Unanimous