East Dorset District Council Planning Committee 11Th September, 2007

Everyone 7 128 1383 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 11/09/ 2007 09:30: 59 Chi ef E xec uti ve Ol d 52 1

East Dorset District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Item No 6 11th September, 2007 Public Report

Schedule of Planning Applications

Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.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

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

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

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

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

5. Application Schedule 5.1 No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/07/0548/FUL Wimborne Minster Model Town, 16 King Street, Wimborne 2 2. 3/07/0702/OUT Land Opposite, 21- 27 Leigh Lane, Colehill 3 3. 3/07/0750/FUL 3 Coppers Close, Alderholt, Fordingbridge 7 4. 3/07/0769/FUL 70 - 72 Wareham Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 9 5. 3/07/0770/FUL Tivoli Theatre, 19 - 27 West Borough, Wimborne 14 6. 3/07/0792/FUL Horton Heath Methodist Church, Burts Lane, Mannington 16 7. 3/07/0883/FUL Caravan Site, Church Farm, High Street 18 8. 3/07/0925/REM St Leonards Hospital, 241 Ringwood Road, St Leonards 21 9. 3/07/0942/FUL 6 Badbury View, Wimborne, Dorset 26 10. 3/07/0961/FUL Moors Valley Country Park, Visitors Centre, Horton Road 30 11. 3/07/0965/FUL 17 Queenswood Drive, Ferndown, Dorset 32

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/07/0548/FUL

Proposal: Temporary Visitors Centre Exhibition Hall and Workshops.

Site Address: Wimborne Minster Model Town, 16 King Street, Wimborne, for Wimborne Minster Model Town Trust

Constraints Scheduled Ancient Monument LP Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Conservation Area Green Belt LP Groundwater Protection Zone Local Distributor Road LP Traffic Calming Area LP Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 6 July 2007 Advert expired: 6 July 2007 Nbr-Nfn expired:

Wimborne Minster Town No Objection Council Comments:

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Development No Objection Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the proposal is contrary to green belt policy. No objection has been raised by the Town Council.

The proposal is for the retention of the single storey visitors’ centre, exhibition hall and amenity buildings used in conjunction with the Wimborne Model Town. Temporary planning permission for these buildings expired on the 31st January 2007, therefore the buildings on the site do not currently have planning permission.

The application site lies wholly within the Green Belt and also in the Conservation Area. The proposal is considered to be inappropriate development in the green belt as it does not fall into the categories of appropriate development set out in Policy GB2 of the local plan, and does not maintain the openness of the green belt.

The Model Town first moved to its current site in 1987 from a site within the urban area. The Council first granted permission for buildings at the site in 1988, and since then has granted various temporary permissions for buildings as it wanted to retain control over the long-term use of the site.

At the time of the application to re-site the Model Town, Members considered that the retention of the Model Town in Wimborne represented a ‘very special circumstance’ to justify its location within the green belt. Temporary planning permission for the buildings it is now proposed to retain was subsequently granted under further applications.

Therefore the principle of the buildings currently on the site has been accepted. However, Officers remain concerned that the current buildings are of a temporary nature and are in

2 need of attention. The buildings are also considered to detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area. In this respect it is considered that any permission is again made temporary to continue to allow the Council control over the long-term use of the site.

The applicants propose seven years but are also aware of the need to replace the buildings in any event.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 This permission shall expire on 31 JANUARY 2014, by which date the use shall have been discontinued, any associated buildings or other structures shall have been removed from the land, and the land restored to its previous authorised state as open ground in all respects

To reserve to the Local Planning Authority control over the long term use of the land.

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: GB2 DES8 BUCON1

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/07/0702/OUT

Proposal: Remove Existing Barn and Replace with Dwelling

Site Address: Land Opposite, 21- 27 Leigh Lane, Colehill, for Mr Ted Bush

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

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

Colehill Parish Council No Objection Comments: Greenbelt

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Recommend permission be refused on lack of detail and Development Liaison visibility Officer

Wimborne Civic Society There appears to be considerable uncertainty as to whether this plot lies within the Colehill urban boundary or to the greenbelt. On consideration we feel that the development

3 would sufficiently impinge on green belt territory for us to recommend that the proposed development be turned down.

Dorset Wildlife Trust No objections provided the development does not impact on the SNCI.

Natural England Objection unless applicant contributes to the mitigation policy. Objection due to lack of information on Bats

EDDC Tree Section Situated on and adjacent to this particular site are many young trees of relatively poor form. They should not be considered as a material constraint on this proposal. Taking this into account, I have no arboricultural objections.

Neighbour Comments:

E Harper 1 Fairfield Close, Colehill Object Traffic/parking Out of place

Mr And Mrs Orpin 29 Leigh Lane, Support with reservations Colehill Is a Green Belt Area Access onto Leigh Lane

Officers Report:

The application comes to Committee as the Officer recommendation that the proposal is considered to be contrary to Green Belt Policy conflicts with the Parish Council comments. The original Parish comment stated they had no objection to the proposal but that they noted that the development extends into the Green Belt. They also requested that if the Officer recommendation was at variance to their views that the comments be reported to Committee. When clarification of their views was requested by email the response was that they supported the application for the new property on the old railway line.

They stated that “if the grounds for refusal are that it crosses the green-belt boundary, then we can't see that bit of green belt being any use to anyone where it is. There are already the two existing properties in the old railway line, the access is being shifted so that it's opposite Fairfield Close and not on the bend and, with the possible objection that it's likely to be another non-affordable half-million pound property, we support the idea of building on that otherwise redundant land.”

Site Description

The long, narrow site is situated mainly within an area designated as Green Belt, with only a small triangular slither of land at the far west end of the site classified as Urban Area. To the south of the site is Leigh Common, which is designated as Green Belt as well as a Nature Conservation Reserve. Land to the east of the site is also designated as Green Belt and includes land designated for open space/recreation. To the north and west of the site is residential development, which lies within the Urban Area. The site, part of a derelict railway line is occupied by a large pitched roof barn at the far west end of the site, and a small greenhouse towards the centre of the site.

Planning History

In July 2001 an outline application for a bungalow and garage was refused on a similar piece of land on the grounds of it being situated in the Green Belt (ref 01/0552). Earlier that same year an outline application for 2 bungalows and garages was refused on the grounds of Green Belt and inadequate turning facilities (ref 01/0270).

Proposed development

The proposal involves an outline application to demolish the barn and erect a 2 storey timber framed dwelling, (with a layout indicating 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms), to be positioned in the centre of the site. A new access would be formed off Leigh Lane, opposite its junction with Fairfield Close. The proposal is to be considered in relation to layout, scale and access.

Principle of development

The proposal would be situated on land designated as Green Belt, where inappropriate development, which includes any development which does not maintain the openness of the land (or which conflicts with purposes of including land within it and new buildings except for a few exceptions) would be contrary to the restrictive Policy. Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (PPG2) states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Greenbelt and should only be permitted where very special circumstances outweigh that and any other harm. No very special circumstances have been put forward as to why this application should be approved. It is therefore contrary to Policy GB2. Members will appreciate that the existing barn on the site is considered a form of appropriate development as it is agricultural in nature.

Dorset Heathland Strategy and Protected Species

The site lies within 5k from Canford Heath and Ferndown Common , both of which are part of Dorset Heathlands SPA, part of a Ramsar site, and part of the Dorset Heaths SAC. As the applicant has failed to contribute to the mitigation measures as set out in the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework, the application would be contrary to policies NCON1 and NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Natural England also objects to the proposal on the grounds that in the absence of a bat survey the proposal is considered to be contrary to PPS9.

Street Scene

The dwelling displays a side elevation to Leigh Lane. It is considered that as the dwelling would take up the whole depth of the site apart from 1m on either side, that a dwelling of such a scale would appear as a cramped form of development that would be out of character and appear intrusive in the street scene. This would be contrary to Policies HODEV2 and DES8 of EDLP.

Neighbour amenity

The layout of the proposal indicates a rear garden of as little as 18.8m, and with first floor windows proposed on the west elevation there would be some overlooking to the adjoining dwelling at No.6, but the building to building distance is such that the amenities of that dwelling would be just satisfactory and probably accords with DES8.

Trees

5 There are no arboricultural objections to the scheme.

Highway Safety

Dorset County Council, as Highway Authority have been consulted on the scheme, and consider there is lack of detail, and lack of adequate visibility onto Leigh Lane, contrary to Policy TRANS2.

Summary

The comments of the Parish Council are contrary to GB2, the adopted Green Belt Policy in the Local Plan, as well as National guidance as outlined in PPG2. Furthermore the proposal is contrary to policies HODEV1, HODEV2, DES8, NCON1 and NCON4 and TRANS2, and is therefore recommended for refusal.

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

Reasons:-

1 The proposed development lies within the Green Belt as defined in the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000, and identified in the East Dorset Local Plan (2002). Within the Green Belt it is intended that no new development shall be permitted except in connection with agriculture or forestry or other uses appropriate. The construction of the proposed building is clearly contrary to the policies contained within these aforementioned Plans and the advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 ‘Green Belts’ and as such represents inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and contrary to the purposes of including the land within it. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are any circumstances which are so special so as to outweigh the Green Belt policies, the harm to the openness of the Green belt and the reasons for including the land within it.

2 The proposal lies more than 400m but less than 5km from a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest of international importance. It is nearest to Canford Heath SSSI (some 2km as the crow flies) which is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area), Ramsar site and is also part of the Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of Conservation). The proximity of these European sites (SPA and SAC) means that determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat Regulations 1994, in particular Regulations 48 and 49. The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the proposal will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland. It is considered that the proposed development would in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to heathland, be likely to have a significant effect on the SPA and SAC features. On the advice of Natural England, the most appropriate way of avoiding further adverse urban pressures on the European sites would be through the implementation of a comprehensive package of measures by the local authorities and other bodies to mitigate such pressures. The applicant has not submitted any contribution towards mitigation following the adopted Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 01.01.07. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be contrary to the recommendation of the Bern Convention Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands as well as Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation, Environment policies A, B, C and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and Policies NCON1 and NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

3 No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on any bats (which are a protected species) that may be present on the application site. In the absence of a bat survey, the proposal is considered to be contrary to PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 2005

4 The proposed development , by reason of the constrained plot, would create a congested form of development which would be out of keeping with the character of existing development in this area and appear intrusive in the street scene. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policies HODEV2 (para.6.163) and DES8 (para.6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan

5 Details of the development, as submitted, do not meet with the requirements of the Local Highway Authority and if carried out in this manner would be likely to endanger road safety, or result in other highway problems.

6 The proposed access lacks adequate visibility onto Leigh Lane and its use would be likely to cause additional danger to road users.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/07/0750/FUL

Proposal: Two Storey Front Extension

Site Address: 3 Coppers Close, Alderholt, Fordingbridge, for Mr T A Dingwall

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Village infilling Policy Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 11 August 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Alderholt Parish Council Objection - Contrary to policy DES8 to bulky poor visible Comments: impact and too close to neighbouring property.

Consultee Responses:

Neighbour Comments:

J Benjamin And S Brace 1 Objection Coppers Close, Alderholt Overlooking Loss of light Loss of character

S Clare 4 Coppers Close, We would object to this planning application if our property

7 Alderholt was to be overlooked by windows from this new extension and if the building comes out further than the front of our property.

Officers Report:

This application comes before Committee because the officer recommendation is at variance with the views expressed by the Parish Council.

Site description

The dwelling is one of four detached properties forming a cul-de-sac development in the urban area of Alderholt. Properties 2 - 4 Coppers Close are staggered; no. 3 is 3.5m forward of no. 2 and no. 4 is 5m forward of no. 3. Unlike its neighbours no. 3 has an integral garage resulting in a larger front garden.

Proposed development

A two storey, 4.9m wide front extension is proposed to incorporate a new lounge and bedroom. The extension will be 4m deep with a hipped roof. The ridge height will match the original dwelling. Two additional windows will be inserted in the new northern elevation and one in the south. A monopitch porch is also proposed.

Material considerations

The character of the property will be retained by replicating the original frontage fenestrations and brickwork detailing. The proposal will not impact the amenity of neighbours as the property will remain set back from no. 4 and new windows overlook parking areas and the blank north elevation of no. 4. Views of the rear garden no. 1 would be oblique and screened by vegetation, there would be no resulting overshadowing. The additional bulk is not excessive and can be incorporated without loss of car parking space. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval in accordance with Policy DES8.

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.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

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

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/07/0769/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Existing Dwellings and Erect 12 Dwellings Consisting of 3 Blocks of 4 Flats Each as amended by plans rec'd 14/8/07

Site Address: 70 - 72 Wareham Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Gee Developments

Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone

Site Notice expired: 10 August 2007 Advert expired: 17 August 2007 Nbr-Nfn expired:

Corfe Mullen Parish Objection: Council Comments: The proposed balconies are considered oversized and will overlook neighbouring properties, and there is concern that the proposed dormer windows in the dining area will also overlook neighbouring properties. The plan is therefore contrary to DES8 of the Local Plan.

Consultee Responses:

County Highways No Objection, subject to conditions previously recommended. Development Liaison Officer

EDDC Design And Amended drawings represent an improvement over the Conservation previously approved scheme.

EDDC Tree Section The proposal to construct balconies on the dwellings will have no arboricultural implications. No objections.

Neighbour Comments:

S Sibley 57 Wareham Road, Object Corfe Mullen Out of keeping Parking/traffic concerns

Mr And Mrs Parry 68 Wareham Object Road, Corfe Mullen Overlooking Noise

9 CD Wallis 3 Central Avenue, No objection as long as the balconies are not used for Corfe Mullen storage or washing etc Letter rcvd 3.8.07 Concerns of noise/parking if flats are to be 2 bed

Mrs Collins 55 Wareham Road, Object Corfe Mullen Parking issues

Officers Report:

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

This proposal is the same in general form to the scheme approved at Committee in May 2007 (3/07/0151). The proposed alterations to the approved scheme are; revised window details on the front elevations of each block and replacement of rooflights on the rear (west) elevations with first floor patio doors and balconies as well as repositioned bin stores.

The balconies are obscure glazed to a height of 1.8, which will prevent overlooking to the neighbours at both sides. The balcony screening adjacent to No. 68 Wareham Road has been extended further, to two metres depth, which is 0.5 metres beyond the depth of the balcony to afford better protection from overlooking.

A major concern of residents is that the approved one bedroom flats are being marketed as potential two bedroom flats. This could occur if the dining room were to be converted to a bedroom and is an option to all purchasers. In planning terms the parking requirement would be the same as for one bedroom flats and the County Highway Officer has no concerns at the additional bed spaces.

Amended plans have been received to replace the obscure glazed windows originally proposed to the dining rooms with rooflights, as on the original scheme. This ensures that clear glazing is possible without overlooking should these dining rooms be used as bedrooms. It is now therefore considered that there is no planning concern whether the flats are used as one or two bedroom.

The only other change to the plans is the repositioning of bin stores which have been centralised around the access road. Subject to details being agreed by condition to ensure an attractive appearance and suitable screening by planting, the bin stores will be acceptable and have no adverse impact upon neighbouring properties.

The Parish Council has objected to this proposal but in planning terms it is not considered that the balconies in this instance are oversized by projecting 1.5m and the distance from neighbours’ boundary hedges is over three metres.

The approved scheme is for three blocks of four flats in place of the two bungalows (now demolished) from the site. The blocks are designed as chalets and will occupy the front half of the site. The rear section containing a woodland will be retained for landscaping. A communal parking area with bin stores and cycle sheds is proposed to the rear of the front two blocks of flats. Two parking spaces are also shown at the front of the site and there is to be a central access to the site.

10 The application site, measures 0.38 hectares and lies on Wareham Road just to the south of the junction with Central Avenue. It is sited 515m from the Corfe and Barrow Hills SSSI and will therefore be subject to the mitigation policy and contributions.

The rear section of the application site lies within the Central Avenue Special Character Area and contains a mixed woodland which should be kept free from development due to its density and maturity. The net developable area is therefore only 0.17 hectares. The density proposed on this area is 70 units per hectare but would be as low as 31 units per hectare if the woodland is included in the development area.

Wareham Road generally contains a mix of bungalows, chalets and houses set back from the road and with vegetation along boundaries.

The front part of the site contained two bungalows which have no particular character and one was in a substandard state of repair. No 72 was a bungalow in a very long and wide rear garden, the rear section of which lies within the Central Avenue Area of Special Character. The rear garden of the former bungalow at No 70 abuts the boundary with the Special Character Area. No 70 had no access and 72 had an access alongside the boundary of No 70.

Prior to the approved scheme an outline application for the demolition of two bungalows at the front of the site and a redevelopment with10 new dwellings was refused because of the site layout, impact on neighbours, relationship with trees, lack of visibility and manoeuvring.

The site lies within the urban area and is of redevelopment potential at a higher level than exists. However, the rear section of the garden of No 70 contains a woodland, with many mature trees which provide the amenity and character of the special character within which they lie.

Within the adjoining Special Character Area, Supplementary Planning Guidance requires new development to follow the established pattern of development and echo the rhythm and spacing of existing dwellings. New buildings must respect the existing layout, building line and street pattern, maintain space between buildings, which allow large trees to develop and create attractive gardens that flow from front to back. New buildings must echo the scale, massing and height of existing dwellings. The distinctive scale, simple form and good proportions of the original Edwardian style houses should form the basis of design for new buildings. New development must also protect existing conifer and deciduous trees, ensuring that buildings, services or hard surfaces are not sited too close.

As the new built form and parking area is largely outside the Special Character Area, the proposed siting of the new flats now appropriately relates to the buildings on Wareham Road rather than Central Avenue. The scheme does provide adequate space around the buildings and takes into account the mature landscaped setting, leaving all the mature trees at the rear of the site for view from within the Special Character area, which complies with the Supplementary Planning Guidance.

The Council’s Tree Officer confirmed no objection to the felling of six trees closest to the front of the site and recommends a Tree Protection Condition during construction works. These trees have now been felled and the site cleared ready for development.

The parking area was reduced on the approved scheme to provide a greater buffer of landscaping on both side boundaries to reduce potential disturbance on both adjoining properties. It is now considered that the car movements will not cause disturbance and that

11 the backdrop of landscaping when viewed through the site entrance will retain an appropriate soft setting for the development, reducing the overall amount of hardstanding.

Although both immediate neighbours would be affected by the traffic at the rear of the new flats, both have mature hedges along their side boundaries and there is ample space for more planting to buffer any disturbance.

Other neighbours in the vicinity have expressed concerns about traffic entering and leaving the site, as has the Parish Council, but this is not considered to amount to a highway danger and will not be likely to cause undue levels of disturbance on this busy distributor road.

The County Highway Officer considers the visibility splay to be acceptable (of 2.4m by 40 metres). He also has no objection on highway safety grounds to the internal layout.

A Bat survey has been carried out by a recognised ecologist and there is no evidence that bats have been using the site and therefore no precautions are necessary.

Contributions are required to comply with the mitigation measures for Corfe and Barrow Hills SSS1. These have been paid and therefore no legal agreement is required.

The site is smaller than the threshold of 0.5 hectares for affordable housing and therefore no affordable housing provision is required, and Members carefully considered this aspect previously for the earlier permission.

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

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

3 Prior to the commencement of development, the first metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, shall be laid out, constructed, hardened and surfaced, to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

4 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.

5 There shall be no gates hung so as to form obstruction to the vehicular access serving the site.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

6 Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the provisions of Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, nothing over 0.600 metres in height above the level of the adjacent carriageway shall be permitted to remain, be placed, built, planted or grown on the land designated as visibility splays on the plan.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7 The tree protection fencing shall be constructed in accordance with BS5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction fig.2. It shall be positioned as detailed in Tree Call Tree Survey and Tree Impact Assessment dated 24 October 2006 ref: DS/47006, before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The protection shall be retained until the development is completed. No ground levels are to be altered, nor shall any excavation be made within the protected areas without the written consent of the planning authority.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged.

8 The land to the rear of the flats hereby approved shall be subject to future maintenance in accordance with the recommendations of Tree Call Consulting soft landscaping plan and letter dated 26 March 2007, under the responsibility of the in house management company of the applicant, as confirmed by letter from Gee Developments dated 18 April 2007. Further details of future tree replanting at the rear as part of the future maintenance shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site.

Reason: To ensure the protection of this Area of Special Character.

9 Hard and soft landscaping of the site shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no: DRW/WAR-70/PA04/005. Details of hard surfacing of the access drive shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of works on site, and all planting and surfacing shall be carried out prior to occupation of the flats hereby approved. Once planted the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years during which time any plants found to be dead, dying or damaged shall be duly replaced.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory setting for the proposed development.

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

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

13 11 The obscure glazed balcony screens shown on the approved plans shall be installed prior to the occupation of the flats and shall be thereafter retained.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the scheme on adjacent residential property.

12 Prior to the commencement of construction works on site, the detailed elevations of bin stores shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority together with additional landscape screening. Upon approval of these details the bin stores and landscaping shall be constructed and planted as agreed.

Reason: To be satisfied about the amenity impact of these proposals.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/07/0770/FUL

Proposal: Erection of Replacement Gates and Fence to Rear and Side Access (Retrospective)

Site Address: Tivoli Theatre, 19 - 27 West Borough, Wimborne, for Andrew Victor Day

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Conservation Area Groundwater Protection Zone Listed Buildings Public Rights of Way Town Centre Policy Area LP Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 22 August 2007 Advert expired: 17 August 2007 Nbr-Nfn expired:

Wimborne Minster Town No objection Council Comments:

Consultee Responses:

County Rights Of Way No objection. Officer

EDDC Design And Although the opportunity has not been taken to introduce a Conservation boundary treatment befitting the conservation area , when modified the current materials should not be significantly worse.

County Highways No Objection Development Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

J P Meredith 6 Redcotts Lane, Object Wimborne Unsuitable choice for conservation area

Officers Report:

This application has been brought before Committee due to the Chief Executive’s involvement with the Tivoli Theatre.

Site Description

The Tivoli Theatre is a Grade II Listed Building although the list description only refers to the frontage building. The theatre building at the rear is listed by virtue of its attachment. There is a rear vehicular access from Redcotts Lane and a pedestrian access from West Borough between the Theatre and No 17 West Borough.

Proposed Development

This application is part retrospective for the erection of a palisade fence and gate at the rear of the Tivoli Theatre controlling access from Redcotts Lane and a side gate in the alley between the Theatre and No. 17 West Borough. The proposal is within the Urban Area, the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area, the Wimborne Commercial Area and the building is a listed building. The relevant policies are therefore DES8, BUCON1, BUCON8 and SHDEV1. The palisade uprights are considered, in their existing form, over functional and of poor design due to their divided heads. Officers have subsequently negotiated that the uprights will be exchanged for a simpler single point form and painted dark green to reduce their prominence. The form of the side gate is domestic in character but is considered to be an improvement on the previous enclosure.

While the fencing is not of the highest design quality it is an improvement on the earlier enclosures. It is at the rear of the building away from the listed facade and therefore has an acceptable impact upon the setting of the listed building and the surrounding conservation area, having at worst a neutral effect upon its character. For these reasons it accords with Policies DES8 and BUCON 1 and 8. The fencing enhances the security and viability of this establishment that contributes to the diversity and variety of services available within the town centre and therefore accords with Policy SHDEV1.

Summary

The proposal is acceptable and has a neutral effect upon the amenity of the overwashing conservation area in accordance with Central Government Guidance and the Policies in the Local Plan.

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.

15 2 The fencing hereby permitted shall be painted dark green within one month of the date of this permission.

Reason: To reduce the prominence of the fencing in this setting within the curtilage of this listed building and within the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area.

Informatives:

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/07/0792/FUL

Proposal: Extend Church to Form Meeting and Committee Rooms, Kitchen Store and Toilets. (Demolish Existing Meeting Room)

Site Address: Horton Heath Methodist Church, Burts Lane, Mannington, for Horton Heath Methodist Church

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

Site Notice expired: 29 July 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Knowlton Parish Council Support - of benefit to the community Comments:

Consultee Responses:

EDDC Tree Section A method statement is needed detailing how the temporary meeting room will be demolished and where protective fencing will be erected in order to protect the near-by Cedar.

EDDC Tree Section No objection subject to condition

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application comes before Committee because the Officer’s recommendation for approval is contrary to Green Belt policy GB2.

16 The proposal is for a side extension to the original church building which is situated near to the junction with Horton Road, surrounded by agricultural land and within the green belt. The church is of modest size and has two existing detached outbuildings for meetings and storage which are to be demolished as part of the application.

A previous proposal for a detached hall was refused by delegated powers (reference 3/03/1182). The proposed building had a larger footprint than the meeting rooms it replaced, the design had little regard for the architectural style of the church and the siting endangered two protected trees.

Following the refusal the applicants engaged in discussion with the Council. The current application proposes a church extension to the north. The form and materials proposed are in keeping with and deferential to the original church building. The development can occur without any impact on trees. No objections have been received.

National and local green belt policies do not provide an exception clause for community facility proposals which are therefore classed as inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However this proposal does not represent an increase in floor area or hardstanding. Although the overall bulk will be increased the scheme will provide a community building in harmony with the original church design and setting. Your officers consider that, in this case, the special circumstances are sufficiently compelling to suggest permission can be granted.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

3 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of construction, the existing pre-fabricated meeting room shall be removed in accordance with details provided by e-mail from Mr Cuddy to East Dorset District Council dated 6 August 2007 and protective fencing erected in accordance with BS5837:2005 Trees in Relation to Construction fig 2 in the position shown on the additional block plan received 7 August 2007. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall additional excavations be made inside the construction exclusion zones without the written consent of the planning authority.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged

Informatives:

17 1 The applicant is advised that bats are protected in the UK by Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc). Regulations 1994, and they are also protected by European and International Law. Demolition work should proceed with caution and if any bats are found, all work should cease, the area in which the bats have been found should be made secure and advice sought from Natural England.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/07/0883/FUL

Proposal: Convert Building to Form Reception, Toilets, Games Area, Store and Cafe (Revision of 3/06/0085)

Site Address: Caravan Site, Church Farm, High Street, for Mr S Judd

Constraints Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Groundwater Protection Zone Power Line Public Rights of Way Village infilling Policy Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 15 August 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Sixpenny Handley Parish No objection Council Comments:

Consultee Responses:

County Highways No objection. Development Liaison Officer

EDDC Public Health - No comments to make. Housing And Pollution

Neighbour Comments:

B G Ridout, Humbys Farm, In support Handley Common

NCC Sherman Maple Tree This building is outside the village envelope in an area of Cottage, Sixpenny Handley outstanding natural beauty. If planning permission were granted, it would be the thin edge of the wedge, leading to creeping development around the neighbouring fields, all of which are outside the village envelope. There is no good reason why an exception should be made in this

18 case to permit development outside the village envelope.

There is a serious concern about noise. This building is close to the Church and to the Churchyard where people pay their respects to the deceased. It is not suitable for use for entertainment of this kind.

This is also close to other houses which look on to it and will be affected by it and is not in keeping with the surrounding area at all.

If this development is allowed, it will further increase traffic up to Church Farm from the High Street. There is already too much traffic coming up the High Street to go to the caravan and camping site, and this application will attract people who are not campers, thereby adding to the amount of traffic using the small lane which was not designed to be so heavily used.

RL Sherman Maple Tree I object strongly to this application for the following reasons Cottage, Sixpenny Handley 1. It is outside the village envelope. What is the point of having a village envelope if it can be ignored every time a farmer wants to? 2. The use as a centre of entertainment is inappropriate at the side of the churchyard. Already there is noise from the camp site which disturbs people paying their respects to loved ones, and this application would just add to the problem. 3. The traffic problem in the High Street would definitely be made worse if this is allowed, as it would attract outsiders rather than local villagers. 4. We already have an underutilised village hall which could be used for this purpose which is close by. There is no justification therefore to breach the village envelope when the village hall could be rented for exactly the same purpose on a regular basis. 5. This is a residential area primarily and it is unfair on other residents to have a commercial activity like this in their back gardens.

Miss B S K Starr 26 Sheasby in support Close, Sixpenny Handley

M A Smith 2 Sycamore Close, No objection to barn conversion Sixpenny Handley Concerns over heath and safety and vandalism

Mrs G Carter 127 Handley No objection to toilet, reception and games area, however Green, Sixpenny Handley objects to store and cafe as these facilities are already available.

T. Mills 65 High Street, Support - good for local economy and no real traffic or Sixpenny Handley noise increase. Well managed site

19 M B Tozer Woodcutts Farm Support - Well managed and good for the village House, Woodcutss

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda because of the site history.

This site was visited recently by Members when an application to extend the caravan site and use part of this building was under consideration (3/06/0085).

The main element of the permission granted under reference 3/06/0085 was an extension to the caravan site but it also included a change of use of part of the building the subject of this application to include the same range of uses.

This application differs from 3/06/0085 in that it is now proposed to use the whole of this corrugated building which was obviously used at some time for agricultural purposes. The submitted drawing suggests grain storage.

It is in a convenient location at the entrance to the site. Recladding, windows and doors will alter and improve its appearance. The facilities are appropriate for a caravan site.

Notwithstanding the objections which have been taken into account there is a permission and this increase in floor area is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the amenities of the village or commercial viability of other businesses in the village.

There are four letters supporting this proposal.

There is therefore a favourable recommendation.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

2 No noise shall be generated within the building the subject of this application which can be heard at any of the boundaries of the caravan site.

Reason : In the interests of the amenities of the area.

3 The facilities within the building the subject of this application shall only be used by patrons of the caravan site.

Reason : To ensure that additional traffic is not generated by the caravan site.

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

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/07/0925/REM

Proposal: Care Village and Community and Recreation Facilities

Site Address: St Leonards Hospital, 241 Ringwood Road, St Leonards, for English Partnerships

Constraints Article 4 Directions Airport Safeguarding (15m high) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Green Belt LP Major Developed Site LP Public Rights of Way Site of Nature Conservation Importance L Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 5 August 2007 Advert expired: 3 August 2007 Nbr-Nfn expired:

St Leonards And St Ives The Parish Council has the following concerns which would Parish Council need to be addressed for this Council to support this Comments: application as presented

1. Access. The Council is not satisfied that the planned access is going to be safe or adequate for the additional vehicles which will use this site once developed 2. Care Village Concept - we cannot see that the Care Village Concept as expressed in the supporting statement of the approved outline application is fulfilled by this application. We seek assurance that this facility would still meet the varied needs of retired people. 3. We note that there are some vacant parcels of land on the site and we would seek assurances on the intentions of future use of these. 4. We note that the Victory Oak planted on 6th May 1945 is already protected under Tree Preservation Order SL149/I (dated 11.01.2002). On 6th May, 1994 a further tree was planted in a presentation ceremony to support the original tree. There is no mention of this second tree and after visiting the site recently Members are concerned that at present there is nothing to identify these two trees to ensure they are protected. With a development of this size it is important that these are correctly identified and precautions taken. It was also noted that there are many other fine specimens which are worthy of protection and we would ask for the Tree

21 Officer to arrange for a report and appropriate protection to be arranged.

Consultee Responses:

County Highways Requested more time Development Liaison Officer

Environment Agency Objection: No flood risk assessment. SuDS details required

Herpetological No objection. Fully supportive of the broad aims of the plan. Conservation Trust Observe that reptile surveys need to be undertaken as a priority.

Dorset Wildlife Trust No objection but concerns that the central open space should be managed as primarily acid grassland rather than heathland.

Natural England Objection: The open space provided on the site will have a limited mitigation impact due to its conservation interest and therefore a contribution under the Dorset Heathlands Mitigation Framework will be necessary to ensure that there is no impact on sites of international conservation importance.

County Archaeological No objection - no archaeological constraints. Officer

County Rights Of Way No objections Officer

Highways Agency No objections subject to a condition requiring any landscaping to be located at least 1m from the A31 trunk road boundary fence.

Wessex Water Services Ltd No objections The existing foul sewerage system should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the development proposed. Surface water disposal techniques need to be explored

EDDC Public Health - No objections. Housing And Pollution

EDDC Tree Section Although there are many young/semi-mature trees throughout the site the majority of them are of poor form and not worth being considered as a material constraint. The only tree of significance on the site is the protected oak which is protected by a TPO. A method statement is required and is satisfactory.

Government Office For No objection South West F.a.o Gary Hendy

EDDC Design And The ultimate effectiveness of the scheme will depend upon the Conservation submission of satisfactory details in response to the planning conditions and adequate subsequent maintenance of all the elements of the landscaping scheme.

Neighbour Comments:

Ralph Holland 248 Ringwood Support Road, St Leonards Concerns however over the access onto A31.

Dr Chris Williams 11 Percy Objection - Access concerns, Road surface unsuitable, Road, Bournemouth Wheelchair access made difficult, emergency service access fears, Storage, Car parking, would like to speak when planning considered.

Mr K Brooks 34A Bushmead Concerns of traffic Drive, Ashley Heath No provision for doctors or post office

L Flay 23 Foxbury Road, St Traffic concerns Leonards

Officers Report:

The proposal

The reserved matters application proposes 128 residential units and provides details of their siting, design and external appearance together with details of the communal facilities, the means of access to the buildings and the landscaping of the site. The application is recommended to be delegated to your officers if the Committee are satisfied with the key elements of the proposal.

Planning history

3/01/0666/OUT - Outline planning permission for a Care Village and community and recreational facilities was approved by the Planning Committee subject to a section 106 legal agreement and was granted on 17 October 2001. 3/04/0067/FUL – A proposal to vary three of the conditions was granted on 9 July allowing limited demolition of existing buildings on the site. This permission effectively extended the time limit for submission of reserved matters.

Site description

The development site is bordered on three sides by approximately 2 hectares of land designated as SNCI, with the A31 forming the north west boundary. Functioning hospital buildings are also positioned on the site and share the highway access, but are outside the application site.

Access and site layout

The proposed site layout adopts the existing access road as the primary access to the site and for NHS uses. The access to the A31 was resolved at the outline stage. A secondary road is to branch north to serve the majority of the residential units. Dwellings are sited in clusters and are carefully positioned to maintain privacy from the NHS buildings. Five of the

23 six clusters are located around a central open space of re-established acid grassland adjacent to the proposed bowling green, storage facility and community hall. The community buildings car park and recycling centre is accessed off the primary road. A replacement cricket pavilion is accessed via an unmade path as this is sited outside the developable area. The designs of the buildings are simple and reflect the original concepts for the site in terms of storey heights. Some minor revisions to the site layout are proposed to accommodate the movement of refuse vehicles at an “adoptable” standard.

Policy base reflecting the outline permission

Policy SL5 of the East Dorset Local Plan lays out eleven criteria to guide development of what is a “Major Developed Site” in the Green Belt. In turn this led to the conditions on the outline permission and the Section 106 Agreement.

To protect the openness of the Green Belt the outline planning permission stipulated at condition 14 that all buildings should be single storey and should not exceed 6m in height. The total floor area was also restricted to 15,000 square metres to reflect previous site development (condition 28). The current proposal utilises 13,025 square metres resulting in a relatively low density of 30 dwellings per hectare.

The requirement for residents of the Care Village to be over 55 years old (condition 29) is reflected in the size of the units which are predominantly two bedroom, 27 have one bedroom and 11 have three bedrooms. All properties have one car parking space and 14 have a garage. The use of brick, timber cladding and render is intended to create vibrancy to otherwise plain building designs. There has been an attempt to distinguish residential units to the south, behind the hospital building, with a design which imitates estate cottages.

The parish council have questioned the level of ‘care’ that will be provided for residents but this is not a matter that was specified by the outline permission and can not be controlled at this stage.

Landscaping

The landscaping scheme proposes to retain a number of existing trees along the borders of the site and in the southern corner. The Victory Oak is incorporated as a feature for one of the residential clusters and is subject to a tree protection methodology statement. Another commemorative tree is too young to warrant a tree protection order. Trees are to line the secondary access road.

A noise protection scheme is required (condition 21) along the boundary with the A31. Details are yet to be provided but an acoustic statement has been submitted setting out the general principles. It is anticipated that the scheme could consist of a solid barrier softened by planting. The recommendation identifies by an Informative that a further submission is required in this respect.

Environmental issues

Though not sited within a flood risk area the Environment Agency have requested a Flood Risk Assessment. The assessment has been commissioned and any decision made by the Committee will be subject to issues arising from the report and the agreement of the Environment Agency. (This was a matter previously considered in principle at the outline stage and there were no issues at that time).

24 The site lies within 5km of Parley Common SSSI which supports important habitats and species protected under European legislation. The open space surrounding the development site provides future residents with an alternative area for recreation, however the land is of local conservation interest requiring careful management under the terms of the s106 agreement so it can only represent partial mitigation. Natural England advise that the remaining impact on sites of international importance can be mitigated by a contribution under the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2007. English Partnerships have been asked to enter into a unilateral undertaking to pay a proportional contribution and Members will be updated at the Committee meeting in this respect.

Conclusion

The representations received reflect the long understood redevelopment principles. The main access on to the A31 was negotiated at the outline stage and the Parish Council’s fears and those of local residents in this case are not capable of forming a valid objection. The Highways Agency raised no objection.

Many aspects of the proposed development are limited by conditions attached to the outline planning permission. The site has a limited impact beyond its boundaries. The siting, design, access and landscaping details submitted as reserved matters propose a carefully sited, low density development in accordance with policies SL5 and DES8.

Subject to the completion of the Flood Risk Assessment, payment of the heathland mitigation contribution and the proposed minor changes to the layout.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The details of tree protection for the Victory Oak shall be implemented in accordance with the statement submitted by letter dated 23 August 2007.

Reason: To protect this amenity tree during the construction period.

Informatives:

1 The applicant is informed that this decision constitutes an approval of reserved matters under Condition 1 of the planning permission granted by Notice dated 9 July 2004 under Application No. 3/04/0067 and does not, by itself, constitute a planning permission. Furthermore, it does not discharge the obligation under Conditions 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27 and 30 to submit additional details prior to the commencement of development.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

25 Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/07/0942/FUL

Proposal: Extend Chalet Bungalow Including Front and Rear Dormers. Replace Detached Garage with Single Storey Attached Garage (Revised Scheme of 3/07/0568) (as amended by plans received 10 August 07)

Site Address: 6 Badbury View, Wimborne, Dorset, for Mr And Mrs A Burry

Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone

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

Wimborne Minster Town Objection - The proposed extension by reason of its bulk in Council Comments: relation to the dwellings opposite would have a dominating appearance in the street scene at odds with the relatively small scale of its neighbours. The character of the cul de sac would be harmed, as would the outlook for the residents of dwellings opposite. As such the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan

Consultee Responses:

EDDC Tree Section No concerns provided protective fencing put in place as shown on plan accompanying arboricultural method statement.

County Highways Condition that parking should be provided to the satisfaction of Development Liaison the LPA and thereafter so maintained. Officer

Neighbour Comments:

M And J Clampin 8 No objections in principle to the extension of property but Marlborough Place, Wimborne concerns regarding damage to fencing and horse chestnut in our garden.

Sandra Thompson 8 Badbury Objects View, Wimborne Overlooking Boundary Issues Loss of Light

S M Worrall 5 Badbury View, Overlooking Wimborne Height and roof issues

R E Hudson And P P Hudson 6 Objects Badbury View , Wimborne Overlooking Not in Keeping

G Lloyd 9 Bradbury View, The proposed increase in the overall size of the house will Wimborne render it out of keeping with the surrounding properties. Northern side of the extensions will have the effect of blocking out some of the early morning sun which we currently enjoy. A further concern is the proposed

26 increased amount of window area (first floor living accommodation) which will be overlooking our property.

Mr And Mrs Little 15 Bradbury Any large addition would be totally out of proportion to the View, Wimborne Minster road as a whole. Almost doubling the bulk of No. 6 (and its already raised position) would make it loom above this end of the road.

Officers Report:

This application has been brought to Committee at the request of the Local Member.

Site Description

Badbury View is a cul de sac on the east side of Lacy Drive, which in turn is served off Allenview Road and is on a west facing valley slope. No.6 Badbury View is on the south eastern side of that cul de sac on a plateau formed approx. 2 metres above the carriageway. The dwelling is a gabled chalet bungalow with low set eaves on to the highway with flat roofed dormers to the front and rear. There are similar chalet style dwellings at the end of the cul de sac. The plot continues to rise at the rear until it meets the boundary with 6 Marlborough Place, which has a platform approx. 2m higher again. The southern side of the plot has a prefabricated garage which is overhung by a mature horse chestnut. The northern side has a paved area surrounded by a lattice concrete block wall. The northern boundary has a dense planting of shrubs up to a height of 5m which appear to be in the control of the adjoining occupier. The dwellings on the lower far side of Badbury View comprise single storey attached bungalows. The property immediately to the north (No. 8) is an L-shaped bungalow with its amenity area adjoining the common boundary with the application site but at the rear of its plot. The southern boundary is common with 8 Marlborough Place and is densely planted, preventing views from each property.

Planning History

A previous application to extend the dwelling across the width of the plot with two cropped front gables connected with a flat roofed dormer under Appn. No. 07/568 was refused on 11.6.2007 for the following reasons:

‘1. The proposed extension by reason of its height and bulk in relation to the dwellings opposite would have a dominating appearance in the street scene at odds with the relatively small scale of its neighbours. The character of the cul de sac would be harmed, as would the outlook for the residents of dwellings opposite. As such the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

2. The Local Planning Authority are unconvinced on the basis of the submission that harm will not be caused to trees which are subject to Tree Preservation Order. The loss of the trees or damage to them would be harmful to the character of the area, contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.’

Proposed Development

As received this application proposed extending the dwelling northwards to within 300mm of the common boundary and replacing the existing garage with a linked masonry garage. Two fully glazed gables are placed on the front and rear roof slopes with flat roofed dormers linking the gables. A high level obscure glazed first floor window is placed in the extended gable.

It was considered that any redevelopment of the garage would compromise the retention of the mature horse chestnut and this element was deleted with the existing garage retained. The current application before Members is therefore for the northward extension of the dwelling with additions to the roof slopes. This has no implications for the significant trees on the site. The access arrangements remain as existing. This Council’s Tree Section have drafted a condition requiring protective fencing during works in accordance with the arboricultural method statement submitted by the applicants agent to prevent tree damage.

Principle of Development

The proposal is within the urban area. No further designations apply to the site. The principal Policy is therefore DES8. This policy states that development proposals will be permitted if they are compatible with or improve their surroundings with regard to a number of criteria.

Design Issues

This application partly addresses the issues of height and bulk in the earlier refusal by removing the southern extension and retaining the existing garage, reducing the impression of development extending across the site. The northern extension removes the existing first floor window and replaces it in the extended gable with a high level obscure glazed window. This northward extension has the potential to increase the dwellings’ prominence by partly extending visually into the open area at the end of the cul de sac that the dwellings presently cluster around. The glazed front gables are also a prominent feature, more visually striking than those of the refused scheme. Using the first floor of the dwelling as day rooms may have the potential to increase the impression of overlooking to the properties opposite, as there would be greater activity at this higher level during daylight hours, which is likely to extend into sunrise and dusk periods when these rooms would be lit. Notwithstanding this, the glazing to glazing distance between the proposal and the bungalows opposite of 24 metres is acceptable, especially across a public highway.

Similar glazed gables are proposed on the rear roof slope but the effect upon the properties in Marlborough Place is reduced by the intervening planting and the changes in level. In addition the garage of No.6 Marlborough Place partly blocks views from the rear of the application site.

The main amenity area of No. 8 Badbury View is in the south east corner of its plot. Currently the boundary planting in that property’s ownership controls overlooking. Extending No. 6 to within 300mm of the boundary will realistically entail the loss of a least one of the adjoining shrubs. It is considered that the loss of even two specimens would still allow sufficient planting to remain to effectively screen the adjoining amenity area from the rear first floor glazed gables. The use of the first floor as day rooms may generate higher noise levels than if that floor was used for sleeping, given that windows will be open during warm weather, but this is not something that can reasonably amount to a reason for refusal, given the nature of the scheme.

Parking and Highway Safety

The County Engineer had advised the appending of a condition regarding parking, but as the garage and access is now unchanged this is superfluous (and would be unreasonable if imposed).

Conclusion

The proposal will result in an extended dwelling that will be more prominent than the existing dwelling, due both to the northward extension and the first floor gables on the front roof slope. Notwithstanding this, in design terms it falls broadly within the mix of styles seen in this part of Wimborne. The glazing to glazing distance to the bungalows opposite falls within the range that Planning Inspectors have deemed acceptable at appeal. The owner of No. 8 Badbury View controls the planting on the common boundary to the north of the application site, which would prevent oblique views from the rear gable windows. The works will accommodate the protected trees on the site. There are no demonstrable amenity issues arising from the gables on the rear roof slope due mainly to the rise in the land to the rear and the intervening planting and structures. For all of these reasons the proposal, on balance, accords with the guidance in Policy DES8 of the Local Plan. It would be appropriate to append an informative regarding the potential presence of bats.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

3 The protection of the protected trees on and adjacent to this site shall be carried out in accordance with the Tree Call Consultancy Arboricultural Method Statement dated the 21st April 2007. Protective fencing, in accordance with BS5837:2005 Trees in Relation to Construction fig.2, shall be positioned as shown on plan TCP/60207 Appendix 2a before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the planning authority.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged.

Informatives:

1 Should the applicant wish to remove or undertake any other work to any of the protected trees highlighted within the report, they will need to submit a Tree Preservation Order application.

2 The applicant is advised that for applications such as this, which involve works to the roof of the existing property where bats may be present, Natural England has advised that the development should not proceed unless and until it has been demonstrated that the works would not have an adverse impact on bats which are a protected

29 species. In this regard, the applicant is advised to contact Natural England to arrange for the building on the site to be surveyed by a suitably qualified person (a free service for householders). Further information may be found on the following website www.naturalengland.org.uk.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/07/0961/FUL

Proposal: Alterations and Extensions to Toilet Block to Include Covered Walkway and External Access to First Floor Ranger Office

Site Address: Moors Valley Country Park, Visitors Centre, Horton Road, for East Dorset District Council C/o Property Services

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Green Belt LP Open Space/Recreational Area LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 25 August 2007 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

St Leonards And St Ives No objection Parish Council Comments:

Consultee Responses:

Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

The application comes to Committee for determination as the application involves land belonging to this Council.

The Moors Valley Country Park Visitors Centre lies within the Green Belt. Immediately to the north and west lies the Moors River SSSI. The premises are well established as a local amenity. The strategic function of a country park is to attract visitors to a facility that has been designed to absorb relatively high numbers without deterioration of the visitor experience. In performing this role it reduces visitor impact upon more fragile habitats. This is relevant to concerns regarding the degradation of Dorset Heathlands with European designations due to visitor impact.

Planning History

30 The Country Park has been subject to a succession of planning applications for extensions and alterations. The most recent is 06/603 permitted on 11.6.2006 for a single storey extension to the kitchen to provide cold storage facilities adjacent to the visitor’s centre. The principal issue was considered to be the impact upon the overwashing Green Belt. The Case Officer pointed out in the Report that Policy GB2 states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within certain categories. Paragraph (b) of that Policy states that one of these categories is essential facilities for sport and recreation.

Proposed Development

The external works comprise; a single storey ground floor extension to the western end of the main building to provide two disabled/ family cubicles. This proposal has a flat roof with an external staircase that will provide means of escape from the Rangers office in the adjacent attic storey. Other external changes are the insertion of a ridge ventilation unit, three conservation type rooflights and a solar thermal collector on the southern roof slope.

A lobby will be formed in the internal angle between the main east west part of the building and the westernmost north wing to serve the men’s toilets. Currently there is an open area on the north side of the main building between the two north wings. There is an arch through the westernmost wing which is ramped down to the internal area. It is proposed to construct a level covered walkway between the arch and the refurbished toilets the main circulation area which is accessed by the northern entrance to the main building. This walkway will be steel framed with a shingle roof. A covered rainwater harvesting tank will be buried next to the walkway. Internally the main changes are the refurbishment of the public toilet areas and the enlargement of the Ranger’s information point and office. On the first floor the Rangers office is extended by a mezzanine floor over the exhibition area.

Design Issues

The disabled toilet will be screened from the car parking areas by the existing tree screen. It is simple in form and appropriate in this setting and will be clad in horizontal boarding to match the parent building. The additions to the roof slopes are minor and will increase the efficiency of the building.

The covered walkway will change the appearance of the building. By infilling between the northern wings it will complicate the simple farm range character of the existing building. This must be balanced against the linking of the toilets to the main building by a dry shod access that avoids steps and ramps. In this instance the provision of an access way that complies with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act outweighs the slight to the original design concept of the Visitor Centre. The internal changes do not affect any third party and have no design implications.

Green Belt Issues

The works are required to allow the facility to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and this refurbishment gives that opportunity, the Council has agreed similar works elsewhere as a “very special circumstance” in the Green Belt.

Summary

The proposal is appropriate in terms of its design, detailing and scale and will enable the facility to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. This will enhance its role in attracting visitors away from more fragile habitats. For these reasons it accords with Policies DES8 and GB2 of the Local Plan.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 11. Ref: 3/07/0965/FUL

Proposal: Extensions to Garage to Create New Bedroom and Ensuite, Extended Utility Room and New Chimney.

Site Address: 17 Queenswood Drive, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mr And Mrs Poulton

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

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

Ferndown Town Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses:

Neighbour Comments:

Mr And Mrs Warner 15 Concerned that proposal, particularly that at the rear, will Queenswood Drive, Ferndown reduce the light received through side kitchen window.

Officers Report:

32 This application comes to Committee as the applicant is a member of staff.

The application site is a bungalow with attached double garage set at the head of Queenswood Drive, which is a cul-de-sac of bungalows and houses. The application proposes to extend an existing double garage forward into the existing parking area to retain a double garage on site, and also to extend it to the rear to provide an en-suite bedroom. A small extension to the existing utility room, which is located between the bungalow and the garage, is also proposed, as is a new chimney to the existing lounge on the northern elevation of the property.

The front garage extension is 4.0m long at its deepest point, with the rear extension being 3.5m long. The proposal is adjacent to the side boundary of No.15 Queenswood Drive, and is set off this boundary by 1.02m. The neighbouring property has two small windows adjacent to the application site, one of which is obscure glazed and is actually on the common boundary between the properties. This window is currently screened by a substantial rhododendron bush. The other is a partially opening clear glazed window providing a secondary source of light to a kitchen which also has some seating and a table. The proposed rear extension will project past both these windows. The obscure glazed window on the boundary will not be any more affected by the proposal than by the current shrubbery. The secondary window to the kitchen, which is the subject of the representation from the adjacent occupiers, will be affected by the proposal, but the impact is not such that a recommendation for refusal is considered appropriate.

The front extension of the garage will not adversely impact on the amenities of 15 Queenswood Drive as the front room bay window in the property is set off the boundary.

The proposed extension to the utility room is contained within the existing structure and will not have an impact on neighbours. The proposed chimney is 4.0m high, approx. 3.0m from the boundary with the neighbouring property, and approx. 9.0m from the dwelling itself. It is considered that the proposed chimney will have little visual impact on the neighbour. Adequate parking and turning will be retained following the garage extension, and this extension will not appear out of place in the streetscene. Some minor revisions to the access off the cul-de-sac will be required but will be ‘permitted development’.

The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

33 3 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the window(s) on the elevation (such expression to include the roof) shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking. Furthermore, 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 in the said elevation 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.