Schedule of Planning Applications

Everyone 7 128 2035 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 30/11/2010 09:30:55 Chief Executive Old 52 1

East Dorset District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Item No 6 30th November, 2010 Public Report

Schedule of Planning Applications

Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Contributors Contact Officer Michael Hirsh, Head of Development Management Financial Implications: None Council Priorities: Environment - East Dorset’s natural and built environment is well managed. Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Head of Development Management's recommendation.

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

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

3. Equalities Implications 3.1 Planning application determination requires a positive and questioning approach by the decision maker to equality matters. Where a particular issue requires a focused consideration there will be a reference in the particular report.

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

5. Application Schedule No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/10/0447/FUL Moors Valley Country Park, Ashley Heath, Ringwood 2 2. 3/10/0655/HOU Woodpecker Lodge, 6a Pinehurst Road, West Moors 3 3. 3/10/0717/FUL 65 St Ives Park, Ashley Heath, Ringwood 10 4. 3/10/0810/COU 60 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset 18 5. 3/10/0885/COU Martha's Cottage Dental Practice, 45 St Marys Road, 23 Ferndown 6. 3/10/0909/HOU 53 Ringwood Road, Alderholt, Fordingbridge 28 7. 3/10/0934/FUL Naughty Boy Studio, Cripplestyle, Fordingbridge 31 8. 3/10/0937/HOU The Old Inn Cottage, Holt Lane, Holt 36

1 9. 3/10/0946/FUL 120 Pinehurst Road, West Moors, Ferndown 38 10. 3/10/1002/FUL Land To The R/O Bethel Chapel And, 36-44 Ringwood 45 Road, Verwood

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/10/0447/FUL

Proposal: Retention of High Ropes Activity Course

Site Address: Moors Valley Country Park, Ashley Heath, Ringwood, for Mr B Davies

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

Site Notice expired: 22 October 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: N/A

St Leonards And St Ives No objection Parish Council Comments:

Consultee Responses: Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

Permission is sought to retain the high rope activity course known as ‘Go Ape’ within Moors Valley Country Park. Planning permission was granted in 2003 for five years with the intention that traffic management issues could be reviewed in 2008 if a further application was submitted. In 2005 permission was granted for an office and store to serve the activity course (3/05/0071). The current application seeks to remedy the current breach of planning control which has occurred by the continued presence of the structures beyond June 2008 contrary to condition 1 of 3/03/0463.

The course comprises five zones sited several metres above ground each of which is accessed by a rope ladder and finishes with a zip-wire. The layout is slightly different to that permitted in 2003 but the wooden platforms and rope bridges remain visually acceptable within the forest where views are limited.

In 2003 the Council was concerned about a traffic management problem at the park at times of peak activity. Since then measures have been introduced to alleviate those issues, including the introduction of a roundabout at the car park entrance. A maximum of 14 people can start the activity course every half an hour, most of these would book in advance but some are existing park visitors. The course is open between 8am to dusk with the latest starting time of 6pm so traffic is dispersed throughout the day. Data provided by the operator suggests high vehicle occupancy for those visiting the facility and there is no evidence that the activity course has exacerbated traffic flows to an unacceptable level. The proposal continues to comply with green belt policy. The initial transport management issues have been resolved. No objections have been raised and the application is recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

Informatives:

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

2 In addition to the policies listed below, in reaching this decision the Council has had regard to national policy guidance, namely Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belt.

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: CSIDE1 CSIDE7

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/10/0655/HOU

Proposal: Construct access, entrance gates with double garage and vary condition No.9 of planning permission reference 3/08/0981 (as amended by plan rec'd 02.11.2010).

Site Address: Woodpecker Lodge, 6a Pinehurst Road, West Moors, for Mr M Holloway

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

Site Notice expired: 27 August 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 16 November 2010

West Moors Parish Council No objection. Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section No harm to significant trees. Two conditions recommended.

County Highways Development No objection. Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs E M I Hailey Flat 1, Object Blue Cedars Applicant is applying for a double garage and drawings as submitted would not permit use of the building as a garage. Plans show 2.45m wide doors to garage however this is 3 only one 2.5m wide access to plot and this would not connect to either of door openings Construction appears to be placed on boundary of plot without any access space for maintenance. Foundations of garage would severely affect roots of yew tree hedge/trees

Further comments recd. on 11.11.2010 Revisions reflect some of the technical design problems referred to but do not address the fundamental opposition. Extra car spaces excessive for a domestic property. There appears to be no advantage to traffic flow along Pinehurst Road. Plans will be detrimental to the other dwellings in the area. Access drive is a "restricted byway"; single track for the benefit of Blue Cedars' leaseholders and inadequate for vehicles to pass each other. The extra traffic will adversely affect traffic flow to the detriment of Blue Cedars' residents.

Mrs C H Vermart Flat 3, Blue Object Cedars Drive which residents keep maintained is a restricted byway Does not believe 6a Pinehurst Road has similar rights of access Plans are incorrect, parking spaces are straight not on an angle Loss of parking spaces

Further comments recd. on 11.11.2010 My views have not changed. Do not wish gardens and trees destroyed so that 6a Pinehurst Road can have access to the end of his garden.

Mrs A Jones Flat 2, Blue Object Cedars Loss of landscaping, loss of yew trees which are an amenity enjoyed by all Legal concerns Do not understand need for another garage Plans submitted with regard to parking spaces are incorrect

Further letter received 10.11.10 My views on the current proposal remain the same as my original objection Nothing has changed regarding our amenity of 25ft yew trees being destroyed and our landscaping of plants and a sapling being removed to enable the possibility of access to the rear garden of Woodpecker Lodge. The Easement that has been granted is approx 7ft wide and in order to gain access the new amended plans seem to suggest that a passage way alongside the car park space for flat 4 be built to gain access to this easement - the easement as granted is on the original plans that you have in your possession which show parking places sited

4 at an angle and the easement adjoining them. There is no scope for this to be altered and I cannot see how a car is going to be able to turn and go through a gap of 7ft in the available space. We all strongly contest the right of South Coast Construction to have granted this easement in the first place. All other issues raised in my original letter remain the same.

E M I Hailey Flat 1, Blue Object to proposed access because the enjoyment of the Cedars amenity provided by the estate will be adversely affected by additional traffic Proposed does not appear to include closing the access from 6a to Pinehurst Road so there will be no advantage to traffic flow along Pinehurst Road Drive from Pinehurst Road to Blue Cedars is a restricted 'byway' with rights of way Drive from Pinehurst Road is a single width driveway and extra traffic that will be created will be detrimental to residents of Blue Cedars Object to access opening being formed through mature yew tree hedge Loss of mature shrubbery, oak and beech tree in area

Further email received 20.9.10 Revised plan does not improve the situation except to allow access to the garage Moving garage further into plot will bring construction more within the protection zone of the existing Oak tree

Mr Graham Prall 11 Pinehurst I wish add my support for this application as I believe it will Road, West Moors make it safer for my neighbours entering and leaving his property if they go via the Blue Cedars driveway.

In addition according to the plans in the deeds of my property it shows that there was a garage in what was then the garden of No. 6 Pinehurst Road. I remember this garage and the entrance was via the Permitted Path that is now the Blue Cedars driveway, I can only assume that this garage had planning permission and this new garage looks as if it is replacing the old one that was knocked down when 6a was built.

Mr Roy Neatham Flat 14, Blue Object Cedars A supporter of the application has stated that the residents of 6A will have safer access to Pinehurst Road, an observation which in my opinion is incorrect. Access to Pinehurst Road from the lane is partially obscured in both directions by existing structures whereas egress from 6A into Pinehurst Road is much clearer because of their low walls.

Further letter received 18.08.2010 Still objects on following grounds:

5 1. There is already a garage at front of property 2. Loss of established hedgerows and trees 3. Destruction of hedgerows and trees would diminish the enjoyment of surroundings 4. Building of proposed garage would cause severe disruption to residents 5. Appears to be no right of way through the Blue Cedars development on any Land Registry plans 6. If application is granted, applicants will be enjoying access through grounds which they have no obligation to maintain. Although the amended plans are certainly more professionally produced they do not affect my earlier objections. By any definition of common sense one cannot expect to drive through someone else's property destroying flora and fauna in the process to get to your own. Also in my opinion the erection of a garage in the garden of 6A would seriously detract from it's own amenity by severely reducing the garden space. Overall, not a good idea. The amended plans show complete disregard for the residents of Blue Cedars and make no attempt to satisfy their concerns - and in fact would cause even more disruption to the flora and fauna of the locality. In my opinion the obvious solution, if 6a Pinehurst must have another garage, would be to access it from the lane at the side of the property.

Mr L C & Mrs S Hofford Flat Object 12, Blue Cedars Access is from restricted byway - plan is incorrect as parking spaces are straight. 30' high mature yew hedging and mature shrubbery together with mature oak and beech trees which have bat boxes attached. Should Natural England be advised? No mention of right of way given when purchased their flat 6A Pinehurst Road currently has a double garage at front of property and enough parking spaces for several cars and good vehicular access to Pinehurst Road If approved it would have an adverse effect on area; increase traffic over driveway; be in breach of landscaping scheme and the loss of mature hedging would spoil the outlook.

Further letter received 8.11.10 Having seen amended plans we Object. Access is again shown from the restricted byway into Blue Cedars and then through gates to proposed new garage. There is a 30' high mature yew hedging which was a feature of development when we initially viewed Blue Cedars. There is also mature shrubbery together with mature trees (oak and beech) to which are attached bat boxes. New planting has also been done in this area which if taken away, would surely be in breach of the landscaping scheme. When we purchased our freehold there was no mention by developers, their agents, or our solicitors, that there was to

6 be a right of way given and there was, forgive us if we are wrong, no right of way through Blue Cedars on any Land Registry Plans. To allow this to go ahead would: Have an adverse effect on the area generally Increase traffic over our driveway Be in breach of the landscaping scheme Loss of mature hedging would spoil the outlook and privacy

Ms C L Richards Flat 8, Blue Object Cedars Why should 6A Woodpecker Lodge have double access when we only have one? 15 flats here - there will be no visitors spaces left Congestion will be very dangerous - blind corner Loss of hedge, saplings and shrubs Pay a lot of money for privilege of living here and to maintain building, drive and gardens

Further letter received 15.11.10 Regarding revised plan - the amendment to the position of the proposed garage does not affect my original objections to the scheme Scheme will have a detrimental effect on my enjoyment of my flat. I object to the use of our access road and forecourt to my property to access the rear of 6A Pinehurst Road. 6A Pinehurst Road has a good access to the property from Pinehurst Road and adequate garage and off road parking space. Use of our drive and forecourt will add extra strain on the drive, designed for use by the residents only. Blue Cedars facility for access and parking is not generous and having neighbours using the space could make the situation worse to the extent that off site parking would have to be used. Use of our forecourt will be similar to having a neighbour access across your front garden to enter their garage. This intrusion is aggravated by the proposed access to 6A involving removing part of our landscaped garden and cutting a hole in our Yew hedge, which is an asset to our property.

S T Daubert Flat 7, Blue Object Cedars Removal of several yew trees cannot be allowed to happen. Loss of seclusion. Someone else accessing through my garden will destroy the beauty.

Further letter recd. on 11.11.2010 My views have not changed. I very strongly object to this proposal.

I Roch-Daubert Flat 7, Blue Object Cedars For access to happen, landscaping and 30ft yew trees

7 would be removed which provide amenity. Applicant already has a double garage, mobile home and room free. Our parking bays are shown incorrect on the plans, they are straight not sloped. Do not want to come out of my front door and see into his garden with vehicles. Moved here because of enclosed gardens and privacy, not for someone to come through my land.

Further letter received 10.11.2010 My views on the current proposal remain the same as my original objection. I strongly oppose the above application.

Mary E Neatham Flat 14 Blue Object Cedars, Pinehurst Road Nowhere on plans/documentation provided by Solicitor during the process of purchasing 14 Blue Cedars was there any mention of a right of way through Blue Cedars to garden of 6A Pinehurst Road. Apart from inconvenience of cars using OUR property, which all the owners of Blue Cedars share the freehold the grounds will be violated by removal of trees and addition of gates to A property that has no connection to ours and is not paying any maintenance to the upkeep.

Further comments received 16.11.10 No where on the plans/documentation provided by my solicitor during the process of purchasing 14 Blue Cedars was there any mention of a right of way through Blue Cedars to the garden of 6A Pinehurst Road. Apart from inconvenience of cars using our property of which all owners of Blue Cedars share the freehold the grounds will be totally violated by removal of trees and addition of gates to a property that has no connection to ours and is not paying any maintenance to the upkeep. Further to my original letter my feelings have not changed and I feel the new plan is even more detrimental to the enjoyment of my property.

Officers Report:

This application is on the Planning Committee agenda because of the number of objections which are in conflict with the recommendation.

No.6a Pinehurst Road has a south facing garden which backs on to a block of new flats (Blue Cedars) which is served by an access which runs down the eastern boundary of No.6a. The proposal is to erect a double garage at the bottom of the garden and construct an access into the grounds of the flats. This will involve the loss of part of the hedgerow on the northern boundary of the flats. This proposal has been agreed with the developer of the flats.

8 Rather more accurate plans than those originally submitted were received on 2 November 2010 and previous consultees were advised of their receipt.

Planning permission is not required for the garage, which satisfies permitted development criteria for the building itself. However, because condition No.9 of the planning permission for the flats (3/08/0981) requires the landscaping along this boundary to be retained and because engineering operations are involved within the grounds of the flats to form the access drive the proposal requires permission.

Whilst the concerns of the residents of the flats who have objected to this application and who wish to retain their separation from neighbouring properties is understandable the impact of the loss of a relatively small element of the existing screening on the amenities of the occupiers of the flats is modest and would not warrant a rejection of this application.

The site lies in an Area of Special Character. The application would not be sufficiently intrusive to adversely affect the character of this attractive locality. There would be no conflict with policy BUCON6 of the East Dorset Local Plan. Policy DES8 of the local plan requires all developments to harmonise with the townscape and general character of the immediate area. The visual impact and relationship to nearby properties is satisfactory.

In these circumstances, therefore, there is a favourable recommendation.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

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

3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans : 1:1250 site plan : 1;200 site plan : drawing no.2182/6A : 1:50 elevations (x2) and 1:50 block plan.

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

4 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant, and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees on site in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement for 6a Pinehurst Road, West Moors prepared by Mr A J Scott (reference 3/10/0655 dated 25th October 2010). The tree protection shall be positioned as shown before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The tree protection shall be retained

9 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 ensure that trees and their rooting environments are afforded adequate physical protection during construction.

5 Prior to the commencement of development, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Council showing the replacement and/or relocation of newly planted trees or shrubs which are affected by the construction of the driveway access on land at Blue Cedars. If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any tree or shrub planted or replaced in accordance with this application, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, (or becomes in the opinion of the LPA seriously damaged or defective), another tree / shrub of the same species and size originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the LPA gives its written consent to any variations.

Reason: To maintain the amenities of the locality.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/10/0717/FUL

Proposal: Erect Chalet Style Bungalow in Place of Former Bungalow as amended by plans received 28th Sept 10 and 8 Nov 10

Site Address: 65 St Ives Park, Ashley Heath, Ringwood, for Mr Joe Barney

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

Site Notice expired: 23 September 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 16 September 2010

St Leonards And St Ives Object Parish Council Comments: The revised proposal does not address our concerns in relation to the impact on neighbouring properties due to the topography of the site, nor lack of screening following removal of shrubbery and trees. Concerned about the loss of amenity value to the rear properties due to the over looking and increase in bulk. Concerned over possible resultant flooding of lower neighbouring properties, if minded to approve drainage to alleviate must be addressed. This is a special character area and we do not feel that the proposal is in keeping with this.

10 If Officers recommendation is at variance to our comments we request that this goes to Committee.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section Notwithstanding tree works and demolition activity that has already commenced on the site, the proposal is compatible in relation to existing trees. The shortcomings in the arboricultural report dated 8th April 2010 for the previous application have been satisfactorily addressed and revised in an arboricultural report dated 2nd August 2010. Full compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement will be required prior to re-commencement of works on this site. Removal of poor quality trees and neglected hedging on the north boundary has resulted in a considerable loss of screening between the site and neighbouring property. If you are minded to approve this application please include a standard landscaping condition particularly to address the loss of screening hedge between the site and number 67.

'Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the continuation of demolition or development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees on site in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and method Statement and Tree Protection Plan prepared by Mr AJ Scott ( dated 8th April 2010 revised 2nd August 2010). The tree protection shall be positioned as shown before any equipment, materials or machinery is brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that trees and their rooting environments are afforded adequate physical protection during construction.'

County Highways Development No objection subject to following conditions:- Liaison Officer Parking to be provided.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs A & E Garvey 63 St Object Ives Park, Ashley Heath Ground area exceeds that of existing bungalow Dominate other properties Out of keeping Sunlight blocked and view compromised Overlooking Privacy Would set a precedent

Further letter received 12.10.10 Object Confirm our previous objections and would add the following points: Privacy - our property will be overlooked from the dormer window to bedroom 4. The roof line will still dominate the neighbouring properties. The development is far too large for the size of the plot and out of keeping with the majority of the rest of the area.

Mrs E E Sage 67 St Ives Park, Main concern is still loss of light and privacy to my living Ashley Heath area.

I Domeney 2 Badgers Close, Object Ashley Heath I feel strongly that the proposal would have a seriously detrimental effect on the enjoyment of the amenities of my own rear garden.

Further letter received 12.10.10 Object The substantial increase in footprint, additional storey and associated roofline would have a seriously detrimental effect on the enjoyment of the amenities of the rear gardens of Badgers Close and Ashley Drive North

Mr SK & Mrs LJ Williams The Object Pines, Badgers Close Errors, omissions and inconsistencies within plans ID-238- 02 and 238-04 What additional work will need to be done to accommodate huge increases in size, weight and radical change of usage for proposed structure? Potentially dangerous decline of 20 to 25 degrees westward Water drainage consideration Changes to design and character Scale of development Impact of being overlooked

Further letter received 5.10.10 Errors, omissions and inconsistencies within plans : Rear building line proposed to be some 3 metres further back toward rear boundary however in site plan 238-04, appears to be 0.7 metres further west towards boundary with 3 Badgers Close - which plan is correct? Design and Character: 95% of dwellings in St Ives Park are single storey - proposed development would cover twice the building to plot ratio of surrounding dwellings. With all 5 bedrooms and bathrooms planned to be located on upper floor the whole would be incompatible with surrounding environment. Scale of Development: Proposed height, width and depth of building design not in sympathy with the topography.

12 Development footprint would increase over 80% above the original bungalow and would extend 18.7metres across the rear elevation. Rainwater drainage concerns. Loss of trees and shrubs: Temptation to remove all existing hedging, small trees and low branches - removal of such natural barriers will exacerbate the presence of such a dominant profile and increase the feeling of overdevelopment. Create even more pressure on natural drainage. Overlooking: Proposed development would result in first floor windows being approx. 6.5 metres above height of a single storey eaves for all surrounding residences. To redress problems of being overlooked a 4 metre barrier of natural evergreen trees/hedging or manufactured garden partitioning/screening would need to be established. Conclusion: Approval may well provide precedent for further applications.

Officers Report:

The application comes to Committee as the Officer recommendation to grant consent is at variance with the Parish Council comments. At the date of writing the Parish have been reconsulted on amended plans and their views, together with those of neighbours will be reported.

The application proposes to erect a replacement dwelling within the Ashley Drive/St Ives Park Special Character Area. The former bungalow has been partially demolished leaving only the external and internal walls standing but it originally comprised a modest, single storey, three bedroom dwelling with a small detached garage. It is proposed to erect a chalet style dwelling with an integral garage and a raised roof to incorporate 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.

An earlier proposal for two storey side and rear extensions to the existing dwelling together with a new raised roof to accommodate 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms (application reference 3/10/0326/HOU) was withdrawn from consideration in June this year.

The main issues to consider are: 1) the impact of the proposed development upon the character of the area and the quality of the SCA with reference to policy BUCON6; 2) the impact of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring residential properties; and 3) the impact of the proposed development upon protected trees with reference to policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

1. Impact on the character of the area

The Ashley Drive/St Ives Park Special Character Area (SCA) is a post 1950 low density estate characterised by a predominance of substantial bungalows set in generous plots with high evergreen hedging and an abundance of Scots pine creating attractive streetscapes.

The application site is smaller than many plots in St Ives Park and the relief of the site is an important consideration; adjoining land to the north and west of the site is at a much lower level than the ground floor level of no. 65 which is the subject of this application.

13 The original bungalow was set back 20m from the highway and well screened by a coniferous hedge along the front and north side boundaries, behind which three large Scots Pines stand. The new dwelling is to be brought forward 1.5m but will remain set back behind the building line of adjacent properties.

The roof of the dwelling is to be raised from 5m to 6m and will incorporate a first floor window in the forward projecting gable together with rooflights to serve the bedrooms. The increased height of the property will make it visible above no. 63 on approach from the south but conifer trees provide screening along the northern boundary where the highway slopes down. There are a number of chalet bungalows in the SCA and the proposed design, with dormer windows restricted to the rear roof elevation, limits the roof mass to an acceptable degree.

The width of the replacement dwelling is 7m greater than the original as it now includes a garage and stretches further north. A 3m separation space is achieved between the dwelling and its southern boundary which, together with a 7m (approx) gap retained from the northern boundary, is sufficient to avoid harm to the rhythm and spacing of dwellings in the SCA. The 3.6m northern ‘extension’ has a reduced ridge height which reflects the change in land levels and the lower siting of no. 63. The proposal is found to respect the features that are key to maintaining the environmental quality of the area as required by policy BUCON6.

2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings

The introduction of first floor accommodation poses the potential for overlooking to arise but the design seeks to minimise the possibility of loss of neighbouring amenity. Objections were received from no. 2 and 3 Badgers Close prior to the latest amendments, expressing concern about the potential for overlooking of their properties. Two of the three dormer windows on the rear elevation are principal windows serving bedrooms but these face the most heavily treed part of the rear site boundary and there is a 40m separation distance from these properties. No. 19 Ashley Drive North is in closer proximity and has a rear conservatory facing the site however the former conservatory to the rear of no. 65 which would have overlooked these neighbours is to be replaced with standard windows and a rooflight, ensuring that the potential level of overlooking does not significantly increase.

The projecting front gable of the proposed dwelling roughly aligns with the original rear elevation of no. 63 with the gable element set at a distance of approximately 15m from the side wall of that property. No windows are to be placed in the southern half hipped gable end. Oblique overlooking from the rear dormer will affect only a small proportion of the garden of no. 63 and the front rooflight overcomes previous concerns expressed about potential overlooking from this aspect.

Land levels slope from the rear and northern aspects of the existing dwelling down to the respective site boundaries. The proposed plan shows the finished floor levels extending 1.6m to the rear of the dwelling to form an 8m wide patio with a second patio at the front of the property in front of the northern gable. The remaining land is shown to retain its natural slope. A condition will be required to remove permitted development rights for any raised decking or altered land levels which could result in harm to neighbouring amenity due to overlooking.

The floor level of no. 67 is approximately 1m lower than that of no. 65 and there is currently potential for overlooking into the conservatory of that property. The proposed obscure glazing of the window in the north gable end and the privacy screen on the northern aspect of the proposed front patio should be required by condition to overcome the unacceptable level of loss of amenity by overlooking that would otherwise result. An 11m gap between the 9.5m

14 wide northern gable and no. 67 is sufficient to ameliorate the potential for dominance arising due to the variations in land levels.

3. Impact on trees

All trees on the site are covered by an Area Tree Protection Order. Protected trees within and surrounding the site make a positive contribution to the character of the area and the quality of the SCA. The Council’s Arboricultural Officers have been consulted on the planning application, and although damage has already been caused to protected trees on the site during the part demolition of the existing bungalow, they have advised that there is no arboricultural objection to the proposed development subject to appropriate tree protection measures being taken throughout development. A tree protection condition is therefore recommended.

Additional matters

A bat survey found that it is probable that a single bat has roosted in the roof of the bungalow approximately six times, some time ago. Due to this a bat mitigation plan has been submitted referring to the need to site a bat box on the roof of the proposed extension. This has been agreed as acceptable by the Dorset County Council Ecologist, subject to an appropriate condition requiring works to be carried out in accordance with the bat mitigation plan.

A Unilateral undertaking has been submitted in relation to Transport Infrastructure contributions.

Letters of objection have, to date, been received from residents of four of the neighbouring properties and any further comments related to the latest amended plans will be reported to the Committee.

Conclusion

The application is found to accord with policies BUCON6 and DES8. It is therefore recommended for approval subject to 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.

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.

15 3 Plans and particulars showing the finished floor levels, related to ordnance datum or fixed point within the site, of the ground floor of the proposed building(s), (and as appropriate the closest adjacent building beyond the site) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and development shall not be commenced until these details have been approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal having regard to the existing site levels and those adjacent hereto.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no extensions to the dwelling, garages, hardstanding or decking shall be constructed without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: Having regard to protected trees within the site, the need to maintain adequate separation distances between properties and the provisions of Policies DES8 and BUCON6 of the East Dorset local Plan 2002.

5 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the lounge window and en-suite rooflight on the north 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 properties and in accordance with Policy DES8 of the east Dorset Local Plan 2002.

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

Reason: To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties and in accordance with the policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002.

7 Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling the privacy screen along the northern edge of the front patio shall be erected in accordance with the approved plans unless otherwise first agreed in writing. The screen shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To avoid overlooking of no. 67 and subsequent loss of amenity in accordance with policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

8 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, if any, thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown.

16 Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979), immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality.

9 The bat mitigation measures set out in the Bat Report (completed by Patricia Merritt on behalf of Philip Smith Conservation Consultant and dated 15/05/10, ref St Ives park 270310) submitted with the application shall be carried out in full during construction of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning Authority. In this respect details of the proposals shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for Bats, which are a protected Species.

10 Plans and particulars showing a scheme of foul sewers and surface water drains, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details concurrently with the rest of the development and in any event shall be finished before the building is occupied.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal and to avoid flooding.

11 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking shown on the approved plan has been constructed and this shall be maintained and be kept available for that purpose at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

12 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the continuation of demolition or development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees on site in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and method Statement and Tree Protection Plan prepared by Mr AJ Scott (dated 8th April 2010 revised 2nd August 2010). The tree protection shall be positioned as shown before any equipment, materials or machinery is brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that trees and their rooting environments are afforded adequate physical protection during construction.

13 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 238-02 rev C, 238-03 rev C and 238-04 rev C dated July 2010.

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

Informatives:

1 For the avoidance of doubt, and in relation to Condition 8, the requirements of the bat Mitigation report ( Section C) are that '1 single bat tube (from Envisage Wildlifecare) will be built into the east facing gable of the building as high as possible facing the garden trees, away from the disturbances such as burglar alarms. This will allow crevice dwelling bats to have opportunities for roosting.' As set out in the Bat report

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/10/0810/COU

Proposal: Change of Use of Shop (A1) and Hot Food Takeaway (A5) to Restaurant (A3) and Hot Food Takeaway (A5) with Installation of Extract Duct and Fire Exit on Rear Elevation

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

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

Site Notice expired: 29 September 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 17 September 2010

Verwood Town Council No objection. Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Public Health - Housing Reference the details now provided from the applicant And Pollution regarding the extract system and odour control proposed for the premises.

The agents accompanying letter comments that the extract fan will be housed in the main unit which will be inside the building at high level thus reducing any potential noise. These details do not however provide any indication of noise levels or of where the ducting will terminate or how it will be routed. I note it is proposed to provide carbon filters which I am satisfied with as a method of odour control but this needs to be allied with a high level discharge. I would therefore ask for more details on the extract trunking and where this will run and where it will discharge and any information on noise levels associated with the fan unit and

18 whether any silencing is considered necessary.

Neighbour Comments:

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

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

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

R Andrews 5 Starlight Farm In support

19 Close, Verwood

J K Mace 6 Starlight Farm In support Close, Verwood

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

Mrs McAleer 23 Meadow Way, In support Verwood

Claire Green 89 Manor Road, In support Verwood

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

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

Miss L Scott Burwood Cottage, In support Damerham Road

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

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

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

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

Mr Ben Squire 58 Hainault In support Drive, Verwood

Mrs Fiona Squire 58 Hainault In Support Drive, Verwood

C Cameron 10 Hampton Drive, In support Ringwood

S Hunt The Sycamores, 65 In support Manor Road

Y C Trapp 3 King Richard In support Drive, Bearwood

A Woode 20 School Close, In support Verwood

P Mills 38 Hillmeadow, In support Verwood

N Craven 11 Paddock Grove, In support Verwood

Mrs J King 17 Magnolia Close, In support Verwood

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

V Percy-Davis 22 Bugdens In support Lane, Verwood

Debbie Caddy 54 Woodlinken In support Drive, Verwood

K R Barker 16 Woodpecker In support Close, Verwood

V E M Barker 25 Bugdens In support Lane, Verwood

H C Holman 104 Ringwood In support Road, Verwood

Officers Report:

The application is put to the Committee on the basis that there have been more than five letters of support and the officer’s recommendation is of refusal.

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

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

History A planning application for a pizza takeaway was approved in 2008 (3/08/0496/COU) and was given a one year temporary consent to assess the impact of the business. No complaints were made to the Environmental Health department regarding noise or disturbance during

21 this time. The permission lapsed 1st June 2009. The key issue in consideration of this previous application was the need for an extraction system.

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

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

Proposal The application seeks a change of use from Retail Shop (A1) and Hot Food Takeaway (Restricted) (A5) to an Restaurant (A3) and Hot Food Takeaway (A5) . An extract duct is to be fitted although only indicative details have been provided. Hours of use and details showing a parking area were provided.

Considerations The site is within the urban area and was previously used as a retail shop and off licence and pizza takeaway. These uses were a relatively high intensity use in terms of customers and hours of use and were supported by parking to the front and rear.

Given this situation and the fact that there is another takeaway nearby in principle the application for a change of use to restaurant and takeaway might be acceptable subject to there being no adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents in terms of noise and emissions from cooking.

The applicant was made aware of the Council's concerns relating to this site in a pre- application telephone conversation. The case officer advised that there was an informative note on the planning consent(s) for the A5 Takeaway Use stating that the Council were unlikely to support an unrestricted use on the basis that there was the potential for noise and emissions that would adversely affect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The applicant was advised that should he wish to test the issue through a planning application details of an extraction system would be required to be submitted in support of the proposal.

Despite this advice the planning application was made without reference to an extraction system other than a flue shown on the elevational plans. During the course of the application details were requested from the applicant and a brochure from a flue manufacture was provided, although specific details as to how this system will be fitted, maintained and a noise assessment was not provided.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has provided comment on these details noting;

"Reference the details now provided from the applicant regarding the extract system and odour control proposed for the premises.

22 The agents accompanying letter comments that the extract fan will be housed in the main unit which will be inside the building at high level thus reducing any potential noise. These details do not however provide any indication of noise levels or of where the ducting will terminate or how it will be routed. I note it is proposed to provide carbon filters which I am satisfied with as a method of odour control but this needs to be allied with a high level discharge. I would therefore ask for more details on the extract trunking and where this will run and where it will discharge and any information on noise levels associated with the fan unit and whether any silencing is considered necessary."

The applicants have been advised that they may wish to withdraw this current application in order that the required information might be provided allowing an informed assessment as to the impact of the proposal to be taken. At the time of writing no response has been provided by the applicant and the application must be determined on the basis of the information submitted.

On this basis the application is recommended for refusal on the grounds that, on the information submitted, the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal can be operated without adversely affecting the amenity of occupiers by way of noise and emissions. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DES2 of the EDLP.

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

Reasons:-

1 The premises are situated in a predominantly residential area in close proximity to residential properties. Despite requests for details of an extraction system to serve the proposed restaurant and takeaway use, the applicant has failed to provide the required information to allow an informed assessment to be made as to the impact of the use of the amenity of occupants of nearby residential properties. On the basis of the non-submission of details the precautionary principle will prevail; the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DES2 of the EDLP.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/10/0885/COU

Proposal: Change Of Use From Dentistry to Place of Worship, Minor Internal Alterations.

Site Address: Martha's Cottage Dental Practice, 45 St Marys Road, Ferndown, for The Sandbourne

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

Site Notice expired: 4 November 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 25 October 2010

Ferndown Town Council Support: Comments: The change of use to a place or worship will turn this currently redundant building into a location that will benefit the community.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Mrs R Day 9 St Marys Road, Object Ferndown Increased volume of traffic especially at this road junction. Car access and exit problems to her property Proposal would bring extra parking into road without restrictions on Sundays. Proposed use of this property would commence before 6am on Sundays when there are no parking restrictions which would bring a volume of noise and disturbance to both me and my neighbours at this anti-social time. Very vulnerable junction with amount of pedestrian activity and passing vehicle traffic. With previous change of use from a private dwelling with a one vehicle entrance gateway to a business with vehicle parking access on forecourt on complete length of property has conflicted with the pedestrian usage. Sand Lizard on this site

Mr Bruce Woodfield 368 Support Christchurch Road, West I am glad to see that at last 45 St Marys Road will be tidied Parley up and improved. It is never good for a property to stand empty for a long period of time. The brochure on the web site is very informative and I think it is of note that the property will only be used for 2 hours per week and it will significantly reduce the amount of vehicle movement in the road. The letters from other people who live next to places which are used for worship by the Brethren show that these are the type of people we should welcome to the area as they all mention without exception that the early meetings 'never cause any problems at all, they are very polite' and as one mentions that 'they go out of their way not to cause a problem'. It is of note also that they will not be letting any other activities take place at this location.

Mr & Mrs Clarkson 13 St Object Mary's Road, Ferndown Our main concern is parking. Also, people arriving early Sunday morning, parking and door slamming.

24 Mr Roy Bartlett 37 Church Object Road, Ferndown I am writing to object most strongly concerning the application for the change of use from a Dentist to a place of worship, the consent to allow a residential bungalow to become a Dentist was in itself in my opinion misguided. The traffic using St Mary's Road is already horrendous without allowing a place of worship to be sited among mostly retirement bungalows to further disrupt our lives. My property is sited directly opposite St Mary's Road and from the kitchen has constant view of the No 45. My wife and I hope that commonsense will prevail and allow the bungalow to return once again as a place of residence.

Mr & Mrs John And Shirley Hill Object 1 St Marys Road, Ferndown Road is a very busy entrance & exit to Tesco Noise from 5.30am on Sundays disturbing elderly residents Reversing cars from car park could cause problem with increased traffic.

W J Stephen 5 St Marys Road, Object FERNDOWN Road not wide enough to accommodate on-road parking Increased traffic volume Dangerous traffic congestion Small forecourt with little parking will cause illicit, thoughtless parking Noise and disturbance to peaceful neighbourhood from 5.30am on Sundays

Mr & Mrs C R Penwill 35 Object Church Road, Ferndown Concerned over: Numbers using this bungalow; number of cars causing problems at unsociable hours especially on a Sunday and noise and lights from cars. Car parking, St Mary's Road has single yellow lines on both sides of the road. Is loud music to be expected at these meetings?

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda because five or more representations have been received contrary to the Officers recommendation.

No. 45 is a detached single storey former dwelling with a linked garage that has been most recently used as a dental surgery. It is within the urban area with the boundary with the Ferndown Commercial Centre running along the rear of the plot. The road is a cul de sac. The Tesco supermarket and its car park and the district Health Centre lie immediately to the south and east of the site in the adjacent Commercial Centre. This application is for the change of use of the surgery to a place of worship by the Plymouth Brethren.

Prior to 2005 the building was used as a single family dwelling. Permission was given for change of use of the entire premises to D1 (dentists surgery) following application 05/0724 granted on 14 September 2005. Due to the location on the edge of a residential area the use

25 was limited to a dental surgery rather than a more general use class permission while opening hours were limited to 8.30 am to 6.00pm ‘in the interests of the amenities of occupiers of nearby property’. This change of use covered the entire building with no ancillary residential use retained. The property has an existing parking area at the front of the building created to serve the needs of the surgery which could accommodate several vehicles.

Although the permission was implemented, the use as a dental surgery subsequently ceased. A number of approaches were made to this Council to change the use back to residential but such an application could not be encouraged due to the proximity within 400 metres of Ferndown Common SSSSI, a Dorset heathland with international designations and the likelihood of such an application resulting in an objection from Natural England. Other enquiries have centred on using the premises as a playgroup but this has been resisted due to potential noise disturbance to the adjoining occupier.

The Brethren have previously applied for change of use of a dwelling at 417 Ringwood Road Ferndown to a meeting hall. This was refused in September 2009 (application 3/09/0649) on grounds of noise, disturbance and vehicular movements (affecting neighbouring occupiers) and also tree issues in relation to the provision of a car park. At the subsequent appeal the Inspector did not consider the use to be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers per se but opined that the requirement of the Brethren to meet at 6.00am on Sunday with associated traffic movements was potentially harmful to the amenities of adjoining occupiers at this early hour when residents could ‘reasonably expect a peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their properties’. He therefore dismissed the appeal.

The principal issue with this proposal is therefore the effect upon the amenities of residential occupiers in the area especially due to the devotional requirement to meet at 6.00am on a Sunday, and whether the particular circumstances of this application are significantly different from the previous appeal decision and the earlier permission for change of use to a dentist surgery with its hours of operation condition referred to above.

No. 45 is on the edge of a significant commercial hinterland that is served in part by St Mary’s Road. Immediately to the rear is the Health Centre and its associated parking with the southern arm of St Marys Road leading into the 24 hour multi storey car park adjoining Tesco’s. The character of this part of the urban area is more mixed than at the previous site in Ringwood Road, with the only immediate residential neighbour being No. 43 on the northern flank. This proximity to the commercial centre coupled with the position of the site on what is effectively a residential promontory into commercial/community uses indicates that there is likely to be a different pattern of both pedestrian and vehicular movements compared to a uniquely residential site, especially with the adjacent entrance to the multi-storey car park.

Several of the representations received refer to the business of this part of the Road. In traffic generation terms this use is likely to have a minimal additional effect upon traffic movements due to the location. The road outside the premises has single yellow lines with parking prohibited between 8.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Saturday although being a cul de sac it is reasonable to assume that vehicular movements associated with the large car park and the health centre will have its greatest impact on the nearest property, No 45.

All of the above and its permitted use as a dental surgery indicates that the immediate environs of No. 45 are marginally different to those of other residential properties in St Marys Road due to its unique relationship to the commercial centre. Whilst this is not justification for a use that Inspectors have considered unacceptable in primarily residential areas

26 elsewhere, it does indicate that this site is sufficiently different and robust and with suitable safeguards in place to make acceptable a use that would extend the normal activity times associated with residential use. This leads, on balance, to this positive recommendation.

Inspectors have expressed concern over vehicles entering and exiting the parking areas at premises proposed for very early morning worship. This can be controlled by restricting the on site parking in the early hours to that used by disabled persons and parents with small children only.

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 parking area associated with the meeting hall permitted by this permission shall be only used by three vehicles at any one time before the hours of 8.00am and shall be restricted before this time to registered disabled persons and persons in charge of children under four years of age.

Reason: The use of parking areas associated with religious communities meeting for worship at very early hours in premises near residential occupiers has been recognised by Planning Inspectors as a source of potential noise nuisance, and it is therefore appropriate to restrict this parking to the registered disabled and those in charge of very young children.

3 The premises shall only be used as a place of worship and meeting hall in accordance with the details set out in the application and for no other purpose whatsoever (including any other purpose in Class D1) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Uses Class Order) 1987 or any subsequent re-enactment.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied about the details of the proposal due to the particular character and location of this building.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

27 Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/10/0909/HOU

Proposal: Single Storey Rear Extension.

Site Address: 53 Ringwood Road, Alderholt, Fordingbridge, for Mr R Crossley

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km Consultation Area Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area

Site Notice expired: 22 October 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 15 October 2010

Alderholt Parish Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section This proposal is for the construction of a single storey rear extension.

This site has a large garden and the only trees of any size and/or close to the proposal are within the neighbour's property. These two mature Oaks are not covered by a TPO but if considered under threat maybe worthy of such protection.

The actual proposal is outside the RPA of these trees and the main issue would be the storing and mixing of materials within the rooting area and for this reason fencing is required between the proposal and Oak trees. If you are minded to approve this application Condition required re tree protection.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr Ian Monks 43 Broomfield I would support this application were the patio doors of the Drive, Alderholt proposed extension on the south rather than the north elevation. Having new patio doors facing north has the ability to project additional disturbance when open in the direction of our house at no 43 and certainly opposite us at no 45 Broomfield Drive. I don't know what the occupier of no 51 Ringwood Road may feel about such a change however. Also would it not be better for use of sunlight to have such fenestration facing south or west?

One small matter is that the submitted elevation plans do not show the roof lights that have been installed. I don't know if Consent was ever required for these, although it may be that these were covered under the original Consent to build this and the adjacent house at no. 51 Ringwood Road.

28 Officers Report:

This application is brought to Committee for determination as the neighbour and objector is a District Councillor.

Planning History and Policies

The dwelling the subject of this application was constructed under 3/03/1198/FUL, which was for the erection of 2 detached dwellings (numbers 53 and 55 Ringwood Road) following demolition of the existing dwelling. A further consent was granted under 3/06/0238/FUL which was for a variation of the plans approved under 3/03/1198. In order to control any further development on the site conditions were imposed on both 3/03/1198 and 3/06/0238 removing Permitted Development rights for any extensions to the dwellings, in the interests of the adjacent countryside. The dwellings are within the defined urban area of Alderholt but the boundary of the urban area with the countryside runs along the rear elevations of these dwellings. Policies DES2, DES8 and CSIDE1 of the EDLP apply to the consideration of this proposal.

Proposed Development

This application is for a single storey rear extension 4m x 6m, which will extend onto an area of the garden which is currently decked. The extension will be sited 6m off the boundary with number 45 Broomfield Drive and 5m off the boundary with number 55 Ringwood Road. There is significant tree and hedgerow screening along the boundaries.

Consideration of the application

The main issues in the consideration of this application are impact on adjacent dwellings and impact on the countryside.

Concern has been raised by the occupier of the adjacent property at 43 Broomfield Drive regarding the proposed north facing patio doors of the extension and the possible emission of noise resulting from this. However, as there is already a patio on this area which is used for seating, with table and chairs, this would be likely to result in more noise being heard across the boundary than if it is within the new extension. There is also hedgerow screening along the boundaries. On the basis of the separation distance off the boundaries and the boundary treatment, it is considered that the proposed extension will have no material impact on the adjacent properties and the proposal accords with Policies DES2 and DES8 of the EDLP. The suggestion of a revised layout by the neighbour is understood, but the scheme is not so poor as to warrant intervention.

The other main issue is the impact of the extension on the countryside.

While the conditions of the original consents removed Permitted Development rights, these were to retain control over future development on the site. This application needs to be considered on its merits in relation to Policies CSIDE1 and DES8 of the EDLP. The extension is to be sited on an area immediately to the rear of the dwelling on an area of decking. This part of the decking therefore has a more domestic appearance than the rest of the garden. The extension is to be single storey only and will not be readily visible from outside the site due to boundary screening. It is considered that it will not have a materially adverse impact on the open and rural character of the countryside and will comply with Policy CSIDE1 of the EDLP.

29 Conclusion

The proposed extension will not have an adverse impact on the open and rural character of the countryside and complies with Policies CSIDE1, DES2 and DES8 of the EDLP. It is therefore recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1340/SK1; 1340/SK2; 1340/SK7; 1340/SK8; 1340/SK9; 1340/SK10.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out as approved in the interests of the visual amenities of the surrounding countryside, in accordance with Policies CSIDE1 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

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

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

4 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of demolition or development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees on site in accordance with Tree Protection Plan BR/1 dated 15.10.2010 which is attached to the formal submission as an amended plan. The tree protection shall be erected in accordance with the specification on the drawing and positioned as shown on the red line before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the planning authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard trees which are considered worthy of protection in the interests of the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Informatives:

1 The applicant is advised that the conditions relating to planning permission 3/03/1198/FUL and 3/06/0238/FUL shall remain in full force except as expressly varied by this planning permission.

30 Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/10/0934/FUL

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

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

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

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

Alderholt Parish Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

32 best for this chapel is to allow it to become a sensible home for a caring family that will fit into the area and care about its surroundings by saving this wonderful building. A very concerned neighbour.

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

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda for consideration by the Planning Committee because there are more than four letters opposing the development, which has a favourable recommendation, and the recommendation is finely balanced.

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

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

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

Its conversion to a permanently occupied unit of residential accommodation would not be acceptable on grounds of sustainability and proximity to protected heathland.

This application proposes an extension on the east elevation to facilitate its conversion into two holiday flats. The footprint is increased by 8 square metres and a first floor would be constructed above the extended single storey east wing. The addition of a first floor within the original part of the chapel does not require planning permission. Out of a total floor area of 336 square metres there is, in effect, 68 square metres of new built floor space which is 20.2%.

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

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

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

Policy CSIDE 2 of the local plan refers to the acceptability of re-using existing buildings in the countryside for tourism purposes providing the change of use can take place without major reconstruction and involves a building of permanent and substantial construction. Part (b) of this policy states that the change of use and any associated works should not result in the loss of the building's character or integrity and part (e) requires the building the building to be

33 of adequate size to accommodate the proposed use without the need for significant additions or extensions. This proposal satisfies these requirements. The definition of "significant" is not provided and the loss of character and integrity is subjective. Members need to consider this policy in context of the merits of the scheme.

As the application does not involve the establishment of a permanent unit of residential accommodation the proximity to heathland at Cranborne Common, which is within 400 metres, does not result in an objection from Natural England.

Alderholt lies outside the County Council's transportation levy zone.

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

The principal concerns of local residents are addressed below:

1. Proximity to heathland: See above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 refused. Together with the consideration of the planning policies of the local plan, particularly CSIDE2, the assessment suggests, on balance, a favourable recommendation.

Proposed Conditions 4 and 5 ensure the use is restricted solely to holiday accommodation.

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 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans : 1:1250 site plan : 1:500 block plans (x2) : 1:50 elevations and 1:50 floor plans .

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

4 The flats shall only be used as holiday accommodation.

Reason : To prevent dwellings being established which would have the potential to place additional pressures on protected heathland (the habitat of internationally protected species) and which would be in an unsustainable location.

5 The holiday flats shall not be occupied as a person's sole, or main, place of residence.

Reason : To prevent dwellings being established which would have the potential to place pressures on nearby protected heathland (the habitat of internationally protected species) and would be in an unsustainable location.

6 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the additional septic tank has been installed and it shall subsequently be retained.

Reason : To provide an appropriate means of disposing of foul sewage from the holiday flats.

Informatives:

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

35 Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/10/0937/HOU

Proposal: Detached double garage, workshop and utility room in rear garden (demolish existing garage)

Site Address: The Old Inn Cottage, Holt Lane, Holt, for Mr David Wright

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

Site Notice expired: 17 November 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 10 November 2010

Holt Parish Council Support. We are concerned about the size of the building Comments: which appears to be equivalent to a small house with windows at first floor level. However, provided a legal agreement is undertaken (as in other cases in the Parish) to ensure the building is not used for residential purposes we have no objection.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection. Liaison Officer

EDDC Design And The application should be refused. The size, height, bulk Conservation and design detract from the setting of this listed building.

EDDC Tree Section No objections.

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda because the recommendation is in conflict with the views expressed by the Parish Council.

The Old Inn Cottage is a listed, 17th century thatched cottage which lies on the north-east side of the Old Inn Public House. Behind it, and at right angles to the cottage, is a single storey thatched annex. Towards the bottom of the garden is a small, wooden existing garage which is fire damaged.

36 There are trees on the boundary with The Old Inn which reduce its visual impact from its neighbour.

The property lies within the defined settlement boundary of Holt as defined in the East Dorset Local Plan.

This application involves the demolition of the garage. Its proposed replacement is a double garage with a separate workshop and utility room. No first floor plan accompanies the application. There are two windows in the front elevation of the roof and the building has a high pitched roof giving a height of 6.0 metres, of which 3.5 metres is roof. The footprint of the building measures 58 square metres. The proposed materials are white render and slate.

The setting of listed buildings is an important consideration to which reference is made in Planning Policy Statement 5 "Planning for the Historic Environment". This proposal is not sympathetic to this sensitive setting by virtue of its size, height, bulk and impact. Thus the overall design does not reflect its location within the curtilage of a listed building or the rural surroundings of the village of Holt and, thereby, conflicts with policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

There is a recommendation that planning permission be refused.

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

Reasons:-

1 The size, bulk, height and design of this development are factors which combine to detract from the setting of an attractive seventeenth century thatched cottage which is a grade two listed building. The proposal therefore conflicts with the guidance set out by the Government in Planning Policy Statement 5 "Planning for the Historic Environment" and with policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan which requires developments to be compatible with their surroundings and, in villages, to harmonise with the general character of the areas in which they are set.

Informatives:

1 In determining this application the local planning authority has taken into account the advice set out by the Government in Planning Policy Statement 5 "Planning for the Historic Environment".

Policy Considerations and Reasons

37 Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/10/0946/FUL

Proposal: Erect Semi Detached Houses (1 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bedroom ) and 1 Detached 5 Bedroom House With Integral Garages, Parking and Access (Demolish Existing Chalet Bungalow.

Site Address: 120 Pinehurst Road, West Moors, Ferndown, for Mr And Mrs E Green

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km Consultation Area Urban Areas LP

Site Notice expired: 25 November 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 11 November 2010

West Moors Parish Council Objection Overdevelopment of Site Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section The site is furnished with a large number of trees of varying species, size and quality. Most notably are the Douglas Firs and Scots Pines adjacent to the highway frontage on the junction with Pinehurst Road and Priory Road. The frontage trees have high or open crowns which allow views into the site from the highway to the group of Scots Pine and Birch at the rear of the dwelling. Collectively these provide an attractive verdant backdrop to the site when viewed from the road and adjacent dwellings.

There is a scattering of small ornamental and fruit trees in the southern area of the front garden which afford little amenity from the wider public perspective.

This proposal has addressed the arboricultural concerns outlined in the former application (3/10/0215) and now provides a more acceptable relationship between the dwellings, trees and garden areas.

The Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan satisfactorily outline how the site could be constructed without harm to significant trees.

County Highways Development No objection subject to the imposition of conditions and an Liaison Officer informative.

Neighbour Comments:

W J & J Fazakerley 131 Object Pinehurst Road, West Moors The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding properties. The size of the development is too large. The development will cause concern with additional 38 vehicles entering/exiting the properties and possible extra on street parking.

Mr Gareth Watts 4 Priory Comments detailed below will be confirmed in writing by Road, West Moors deadline of 11th November 2010.

There are a number of key objections to this application request:

1. The roofline of the 5 bedroom property proposed for Priory Road is significantly above all other properties in this road, both bungalows and chalet style houses. The roof for this property is at least 15% higher than our property, which is a chalet house, and is out of keeping with all other properties in Priory Road.

2. The building line appears to be at least 2 metres ahead of the building line in the rest of this side of Priory Road.

3. The building of a 5 bedroom hose in Priory Road with a vehicle access also in Priory road will create significant additional vehicle movements at what is already a busy and constricted junction.

On the assumption of there being at least 2 and probably 3 vehicles on site in the Priory Road property this will significantly add to the risk of collision at the Priory/Pinehurst junction which is at such an angle as to require vehicles turning into Priory Road from Pinehurst heading in a Westerly direction to cross the central white lines. By adding a driveway entrance between our property and the junction the available room for manoeuvre is significantly reduced.

Due to the narrowness of Priory Road it is also impossible to exit a drive without crossing the central line and so with the proximity of the new drive and the junction collisions are much more likely.

4. The volume of building work and ground disturbance that will be required to construct the three properties where only one currently exists will inevitably lead to impact upon the root network of the trees on site and in adjacent properties which is likely to cause significant damage to those trees resulting in those trees being in a dangerous condition. Damaging the roots of the Pine trees may result in those trees falling on and damaging my property.

Several of the trees likely to be impacted are protected whilst others are on adjacent properties.

5. The amount of building work required to construct three properties on this site will result in a large and unacceptable amount of works traffic and parking. Priory

39 Road, as mentioned in number 3 is a narrow road which is not equipped to accommodate the amount of vehicles that will need to be parked at the site. It is also likely that vehicles will be parked close to the junction with Pinehurst Road which as already mentions will be a significant traffic hazard and a danger to personal safety for motorists and pedestrians alike.

Vehicles are unlikely to park in Pinehurst Road as it is a thoroughfare and so Priory or Abbey are likely to be the parking lot.

The amount of disruption and mess that is likely to be caused not to mention the inconvenience of multiple works vehicles is also a major concern.

Mr Dunn & Mrs Macfarlane Object Dunn 1 Abbey Road, West Will give rise to many vehicles on the premises, exiting at Moors busy crossroads, with bus stops and post box. Cramped appearance of buildings not in keeping with surrounding properties.

Officers Report:

The application is put to the Planning Committee as the Officer's Recommendation is at variance to the views of the Parish Council.

Site Description The application site comprises a large corner plot on the junction of Pinehurst Road and Priory Road, West Moors. At present a bungalow occupies the centre of the plot and is built of brick and render under a concrete tile roof; the property stands 6.3m to ridge. The site has a number of trees along the road frontage and to the rear which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Access to the site is from Pinehurst Road.

The site is furnished with a large number of trees of varying species, size and quality. Most notably are the Douglas Firs and Scots Pines adjacent to the highway frontage on the junction with Pinehurst Road and Priory Road. The frontage trees have high or open crowns which allow views into the site from the highway to the group of Scots Pine and Birch at the rear of the dwelling. Collectively these provide an attractive verdant backdrop to the site when viewed from the road and adjacent dwellings.

There is a scattering of small ornamental and fruit trees in the southern area of the front garden which afford little amenity from the wider public perspective.

The immediate area is residential in character with a house at 118 Pinehurst Road and a large chalet dwelling at 4 Priory Road. On the other side of Pinehurst Road are further houses.

History An application was submitted earlier this year (10/0215/FUL) to demolish the existing bungalow and erect two pairs of semi-detached dwellings; 4 properties in total. These took the form of 2x three bedroom and 2x four bedroom properties finished in brick and hanging tile under a plain tiled roof. The proposed properties were to be 9m to ridge with an eaves

40 height of 5m and follow the building lines on Pinehurst Road and Priory Road with a gap in between.

The proposal was subject to pre-application discussions (Oct 2009 and Feb 2010) where support was given in principle to the proposal subject to the caveat that a tree survey should be undertaken to assess the impact and inform the design of the properties. Despite this advice the applicants chose not to provide a tree survey at pre-application stage and instead made a planning application.

The application was refused mainly on trees grounds:

“The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site that in turn will lead to a loss of trees. The frontage trees have high crowns which allow views into the site from the public highway to the group of Scots Pine and Birch at the rear of the dwelling. Collectively these trees provide an attractive verdant backdrop to the site when viewed from the road and adjacent dwellings. The southern aspect, full crowns, proximity, size and potential growth of the trees are not compatible with the modest rear garden plots proposed. All four gardens and south/west elevations, particularly No.1 and No 4 will be subject to excessive levels of shade from the Pine and Birch for most of the day. The canopy of T39 (Scots Pine) is c.3.5 metres from the rear elevation of dwelling and has a natural lean towards it. Future occupants are likely to resent the trees due to excessive shading and dominance resulting in their removal or applications to remove the trees. The loss of these trees would be harmful to the mature and verdant characteristics of the locality. This council are mindful of the advice in section 3.1.1 of the BS.5837:2005 relating to poorly sited layouts in relation to trees and strive to maintain harmony on new development. The proposals are not compatible in their relation to mature trees and are contrary to EDLP DES8.”

Two other reasons for refusal relating to the failure to provide a contribution towards the Interim Planning Framework and Transport Contributions were also given.

Proposal The revised proposal is to demolish the existing bungalow and a single house and a pair of semi-detached dwellings; 3 properties in total. These take the form of 2x three bedroom and 1x five bedroom properties finished in brick and hanging tile under a plain tiled roof. The properties stand a 9m to ridge with an eaves height of 5m and follow the building lines on Pinehurst road and Priory Road with a gap in between.

Two accesses are proposed providing parking for cars, one from Pinehurst Road to serve the pair of semi detached properties, and an access from Priory Road to serve the house.

The tree survey notes that a number of trees will be felled in the southwest corner of the site.

Considerations Principle of development - The site is within the urban area where there is a presumption in favour of development subject to normal planning considerations.

Since the submission of the previous scheme there has been a material change to Government policy. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing, was re-issued on 10 June 2010. The wording of the previous document applies except for three alterations:

(1) At paragraph 41 a sentence has been brought into the main document from Annex B which advises: "There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is not necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."

(2) At paragraph 47 of the main document the national minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare net has been deleted. This had been used as the national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision making, as has the sentence that requires local planning authorities to justify densities below this minimum.

(3) Last, in Annex B in the sub-section previously-developed land (often referred to as Brownfield land) gardens has been added to the list of exclusions from Brownfield land alongside parks, recreation grounds and allotments etc.

In relation to the form of development, the Local Plan contains supporting text that now needs to be attributed less weight in relation to density issues. This extends to the interpretation of policy HODEV2 (6.163) which is a criteria based policy and where the first criteria relates to density. The first part of the policy reads:

"New housing will be permitted in urban areas and within Village Infill Envelopes where the proposals:

(a) make the best use of the available land with higher densities particularly in town centres and places with good public transport accessibility."

The compulsion for higher densities has been superseded by PPS3 in its new form. In practice this means that the decision maker will still be expected to react positively to development within the existing urban area where the schemes are seen to accord with the prevailing character and fulfil the criteria in HODEV2 (b) - (g).

On the basis of this new advice the local planning authority need to consider each site on its own merits, notably the impact on the character of the area; there is no longer a requirement to positively increase density.

This particular application involves the development of three properties with frontages (rather than backland plots). Whilst the density is higher it is considered that the development of three properties as proposed is not unacceptable and would not have an adverse impact on the streetscene of residential character of the area. This view is based on fact that the design of the properties appears as two larger houses (albeit three properties) of a similar style and size and other properties in the street. Whilst the properties are tall they are well proportioned; a lower ridge height (say 8m) could be achieved with a lower pitch but this would appear awkward. It is considered that the siting and parking layout is also acceptable and on this basis the proposal is acceptable in design terms. On the basis of the above the proposal meets Policies HODEV1 and DES8 of the EDLP.

Amenities of neighbours The properties have been designed to ensure there is no overmassing or overshadowing of adjacent properties. Equally there are no windows that overlook neighbours. On this basis no objection is raised on amenity grounds with the scheme meeting Policy DES8 of the EDLP.

Trees The Council's Tree Officer has been consulted and advises that this proposal has addressed the arboricultural concerns outlined in the former application (3/10/0215) and now provides a more acceptable relationship between the dwellings, trees and garden areas. The Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan satisfactorily outline how the site could be constructed without harm to significant trees. On this basis no objection is raised.

42 Nature Conservation A bat survey advises that there are no bats in the dwelling that is to be demolished.

Highways No objection is raised to the plans subject to conditions.

Contributions A Unilateral undertaking has been submitted in relation to the Dorset Heathlands and the South East Dorset Transport Contributions scheme. The unilateral has been completed correctly.

Summary The redevelopment of the site with three houses will not adversely impact the on the residential character or result in the loss of trees. The design and positioning of the properties ensures that there will be no harm to the amenity of neighbours. The required contribution towards infrastructure has been provided. On the basis of the above the proposal is in accordance with Policy DES8, HODEV1 and NCON4 of the EDLP and is recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

Nos. 10,11,12 and 13

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

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

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

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no extension to the dwelling, outbuilding, or other works permitted by Class A, B,C shall be constructed or erected without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: In order to minimise the impact of any further development on the Green Belt.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration or

43 door shall be installed at first floor level (such expression to include the roof) without express planning permission.

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

6 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of demolition or development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant, and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees on site in accordance with the Arboricultural Report prepared by B.J. Unwin Forestry Consultancy for 120 Pinehurst Road, West Moors - dated January 2010 (reference 3/10/0946/FUL). The tree protection shall be positioned as shown before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that trees and their rooting environments are afforded adequate physical protection during construction.

7 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the accesses, 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.

8 Prior to the occupation of development the access crossings, from the nearside edge of the carriageway to the back edge of the footway, 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.

9 Before the development hereby authorised is brought into use any entrance gates shall be set back a minimum distance of 5 metres from the edge of the carriageway and hung so as to open inwards.

Reason: To enable vehicles to be parked clear of the carriageway whilst any gates are being opened or closed in the interests of highway safety.

10 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.

Informatives:

1 The applicants have provided a unilateral undertaking to pay the appropriate contribution in relation to Heathland mitigation as required by the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009 (as amended) and the Transport

44 Infrastructure Contributions in accordance with the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Supplementary Planning Guidance.

2 The application has been determined with reference to PPS3 (Housing)

3 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway the Area Highways Manager (East) should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification for the access. He can be contacted at the Area Office (East), Stour Park, Blandford St Mary, Dorset, DT11 9LQ (Tel: 01258 422488)

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/10/1002/FUL

Proposal: Construction of Timber Decking around Part of the Nursing Home Approved Under Planning Permission References 3/09/0435/FUL and 3/09/1090/FUL. Construction of a Timber Fence (Approximately 3 Metres) to the South of the Site. Erection of Five External Air Conditioning Units (Enclosed by Acoustic Fencing) at the Nursing Home (Part Retrospective) and additional information received 4 Nov 2010.

Site Address: Land To The R/O Bethel Chapel And, 36-44 Ringwood Road, Verwood, for Archstone Lifestyle Properties Ltd

Site Notice expired: 19 November 2010 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 12 November 2010

Verwood Town Council Objection. Decking is detrimental to the amenity and loss of Comments: privacy of nearby residents. Height position and noise pollution of external air conditioning units so close to neighbouring properties.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Public Health - Housing And Pollution

EDDC Design And 45 Conservation

EDDC Tree Section

Neighbour Comments:

Karen Willis 130 Hainault Object Drive, Verwood The decking, raised above ground level by nearly 3 feet, is situated far too close to my property and is completely unacceptable. The noise intrusion would have a direct effect on my quality of life. A proposed high fence would provide privacy but would not prevent noise. Noise is also at the centre of my objection to the 5 air conditioning units.

T & M Ryle 128 Hainault Drive, Object Verwood Extensive high decking within two or three metres of our garden with deck level only 30in below the top of our 6ft fence. Decking now has tables and chairs along its entire length. People will be sitting and conversing very close to our garden fence and at present they can look straight down into our property. In an attempt to screen decking builders have planted bamboo along the whole of our boundary and that of our neighbours. We object to this on the grounds that it does not address the problem of either effective screening or noise reduction. This plant is invasive and could adversely affect existing plants close by our side of fence. On subject of positioning of the five air conditioning units attached to rear of block B, they are emitting a constant hum which can be heard in our double glazed conservatory, which we think is unacceptably intrusive. Wooden screening erected in front of units seems to be ineffective.

Further letter received 27.10.10 Company now proposes a 3 metre high fence to south of site. Although this would solve issue of overlooking we still maintain that the decking is too high and too close to our property and now with addition of tables and chairs along its entire length the decking area is clearly intended to be an area of recreation and think that noise leveles will be too high and unacceptable. On issue of 5 air conditioning units, some attempt has been made to reduce noise by erecting a wooden screen around them. Still objecting to them as it is impossible for us to know whether they have been running one or more of these units. We suspect as building is not fully operational at present that only one has been running, and this can be heard as we have already stated.

46 Officers Report:

This application, submitted in retrospect seeks to regularise an area of unauthorised decking at the rear of the nursing home, together with the retention of 5 air conditioning units also at the rear of the premises. Additionally a timber fence, 3 metres in height is proposed to be erected along the site’s southern boundary.

The site is located within the urban area. To the south are Bugdens Copse SSSI and the rear gardens to 128 and 130 Hainault Drive.

Site History Planning permission was granted under ref: 3/09/0435/FUL (as amended by 3/09/1151/NMC) for the redevelopment of land to the rear of Bethel Chapel and 36-44 Ringwood Road in Verwood. The approved development was for the construction of a 40 bedroom care home, following demolition of the existing dwellings on the site. The care home is designed in a U-shape, with the three blocks linked by glazed corridors. A dwelling at the front of the site in place of no. 36 Ringwood Road was to provide staff accommodation.

Planning reference 3/09/0809/FUL approved the erection of a detached dwelling at the front of the site in place of previously approved the staff accommodation. The staff accommodation was to be provided within the care home building

Planning Application 3/09/1090 varied Condition 20 of the original consent to include the relocation of two WCs together with alterations to the fenestration and materials.

The nursing home has been completed, but is not yet fully functioning as a nursing home as there are no residents on site. Building works have commenced and continued prior to the discharge of all conditions. Landscaping details for the development have not been agreed.

This application seeks retrospective approval for hard and soft landscaping of the site as implemented, together with the retention of an area of decking and 5 air conditioning units at the rear of the site adjacent to the site’s southern boundary. The decking area affords disabled access from ground floor accommodation within the building to outside seating and dining areas.

The main issue in the consideration of this application is the effect of the proposals on the occupiers of numbers 128 and 130 Hainault Drive to the south.

When the original application was first considered, the issue of the proximity of the building to the rear boundary with the properties in Hainault Drive was carefully considered. As no windows were proposed in the rear elevation of Block B at first floor level, it was considered that there would be no material loss of privacy to the occupiers of nos. 128 and 130.

The properties in Hainault Drive are set at a lower level. Subsequent revisions to the scheme, as approved, have also sought to ensure that any windows or doors introduced into the rear elevation be obscure glazed.

Air Conditioning Units The installation of air conditioning units at the rear of the nursing home are considered to have limited visual impact. The units are set within acoustic housing which seeks to reduce the impact of any noise emission. The Head of Public Health has been consulted of the

47 application and any comments received, relating to noise emissions from the air conditioning units will be reported at the meeting.

Landscaping The submitted landscaping scheme is generally acceptable in so far as the planting species and mix are concerned. In order to avoid confusion; for the purposes of this report, the 3metre high fencing, bamboo screening and decking shown on the landscaping plan will be considered separately to the other landscaping elements shown.

The earlier but not approved landscape submission show a ‘turf’ footpath along part of the rear boundary at existing ground level. Also shown was an informal sitting out area beneath a tree in the corner of the site.

Raised Decking The proposed raised decking area is a materially different form of treatment from the earlier scheme. Undoubtedly higher than the ‘turf’ pathway, it also has a more formal, physical presence being railed with steps down to the adjacent ground level. These properties are located approximately 16m from the decking.

Due to its raised position and close proximity to the rear gardens of number 128 and 130 Hainault Drive, the unscreened use of this decking would disturb and overlook the rear gardens, resulting in loss of amenity to those properties.

In order to mitigate the effects of overlooking, the applicants propose the erection of a 3 metre high screen fence, and the planting of a bamboo ‘hedge’ between the decking and the site’s southern boundary with numbers 128 and 130 Hainault Drive. Some bamboo planting has already taken place which although not approved, affords some screening to those properties.

The neighbours concerns regarding the impact of the external decking seating area on their amenity are legitimate. The retention of the decking if unscreened would be unacceptable and result in loss of amenity to the residents of those properties.

The issue is therefore whether the proposed screening is sufficient to mitigate the harm caused from overlooking and general disturbance through use.

The bamboo screen in situ limits the ability to see into the adjacent garden areas. The addition of a solid 3metre high fence, together with the additional planting will limit the degree of overlooking to those gardens and help reduce disturbance.

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to condition and subject to the comments of the Head of Public Health.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 Proposals for landscaping the site, as shown on the submitted plans, including the planting of additional trees and shrubs, and the provision of walls and fences, shall be carried out prior to first occupation of the nursing home by residents or before the end of the current planting season (31st March 2011), whichever is the soonest. Any plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be duly replaced and the whole scheme thereafter retained.

48 Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality.

2 Within two months of this decision or prior to first occupation of the nursing home by residents; whichever is the sooner, the 3 metre high close boarded fence shown on the approved plans shall be erected and the remaining bamboo screen 'hedgerow' planted and thereafter retained. Any plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be duly replaced and the whole scheme thereafter retained.

Reason: The retention of the decking area without appropriate screening would be unacceptable and result in loss of amenity to the rear garden areas to numbers 128 and 130 Hainault Drive contrary to policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002.

3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Typical Landscape general arrangement plan ref D1624.L.100 at 1:200 scale ( received 18th October 2010), Air conditioning condenser location A51/09/49 at scale 1:100( received 18th October 2010), decking screening A51/09/50 at scale 1:50 (received 4th November 2010), location plan scale 1:1250 (received 18th October 2010).

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons

6. Appendices 6.1 None.

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