Everyone 7 128 1655 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 04/11/2008 09:30:52 Chief Executive Old 52 1
East Dorset District Council
Planning Committee Agenda Item No 6 4th November, 2008 Public Report Schedule of Planning Applications Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Contributors: Chief Executive Contact Officer: Michael Hirsh, Head of Planning & Building Control Financial Implications: None. Council Priorities: ENV1 Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Head of Planning and Building Control's recommendation.
1. Applicable Lead Member Area(s) 1.1 Environment.
2. Crime and Disorder – Section 17 Implications 2.1 Where there is a specific crime and disorder matter that is a material planning consideration, it will form part of the report related to the particular application.
3. Equalities Implications 3.1 There are no implications associated with this report.
4. Risk Implications 4.1 There are no implications associated with this report.
5. Application Schedule
No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/08/0468/FUL 92 High Street, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 2 2. 3/08/0659/FUL 112 Station Road, West Moors, Ferndown 17 3. 3/08/0788/FUL Hunters Lodge, High Street, Sturminster Marshall 19 4. 3/08/0929/FUL Sutton Farm, Sutton, Wimborne 22 5. 3/08/0955/FUL Dudsbury Golf Club , 64 Christchurch Road, Ferndown 25 6. 3/08/0991/FUL 8 Freemans Lane, Colehill, Dorset 30 7. 3/08/1003/FUL Bucklers Hard, 3 Rowlands Hill, Wimborne 33 8. 3/08/1031/FUL 69 High Street, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 36 9. 3/08/1039/COU 133 Coppice Avenue, Ferndown, Dorset 39 10. 3/08/1080/FUL 33 Dudsbury Road, West Parley, Dorset 40 11. 3/08/1089/FUL 58 Heatherdown Road, West Moors, Ferndown 43 12. 3/08/1100/FUL 112 Station Road, West Moors, Ferndown 45 13. 3/08/1101/FUL Orchard House, Pentridge, Salisbury 46 14. 3/08/1104/FUL Land To The Rear Of, 112 Station Road, West Moors 50
1 Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/08/0468/FUL
Proposal: Erect 21 Dwellings, access Road, Garaging, Parking and Play Area as amended by plans and additional plans rec'd 25.7.08 and add info rec'd 18.8.08 and 26.8.08 and 9.10.08
Site Address: 92 High Street, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne, for Mr C Palmer
Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone
Site Notice expired: 8 May 2008 Advert expired: 9 May 2008 Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 October 2008
Sturminster Marshall Parish Objection: Council Comments: Access, Housing, Pavement, Disabled Access, Overlooking, Levels, Car parking, Play Area, Services, Water, Sewerage, Surface Water, Old Thatch, Hazard
Sturminster Marshall Parish Objection: Council Comments: Parish Councils original objections are to stand. Also: Access, Levels, Car-parking, Surface Water, Flooding.
Consultee Responses:
County Highways Development No Objection, subject to conditions Liaison Officer
Environment Agency No objection subject to following conditions and informatives as detailed in letter on file dated 07.05.08 in respect of following: Flood Risk Surface Water Drainage Water Efficiency Pollution Prevention During Construction Foul Water Drainage
EDDC Design And The amended layout, received on 9 October, addresses Conservation some of our earlier design concerns and, overall, just about meets Building for Life design criteria. Good quality building materials and landscaping should raise the design standard further
Neighbour Comments:
Mrs Kerry Clark & Object Mr Stephen Clark Car lights 75 High Street Traffic/parking concerns Sturminster Marshall Noise Mr and Mrs R Blackburn Object 72 High Street Traffic Sturminster Marshall Floods Sewer system
2 Drains Mrs G Dyer Object 64 Churchill Street Traffic Congestion Sturminster Marshall Danger to Highway Users Near School Historic Part of Sturminster Marshall - Part of Character Owner And Occupier Object 114 High Street Overdevelopment Sturminster Marshall Out of Keeping Increase in Traffic Light Pollution Mr A Wickham Object Lark's Way Out of Keeping High Close Overcrowded Sewage System Overloaded Light Pollution Mrs Lamb Object 7 Churchill Close Roads Inadequate Sturminster Marshall Loss of Privacy S Myock Object 23 Moor Lane Increase in Traffic Sturminster Marshall Inadequate Sewer System Flood Risk Loss Of Privacy L And N Rule Object Rose Cottage Overdevelopment, Front Lane Safety Environment Village Needs Mrs Champion Object The Sett Access 85 High Street Flooding Street Lighting D K Martin Object 3 High Close Traffic Sturminster Marshall Parking Facilities Character of village Mrs Wallis Object 18 Charborough Way Parking Sturminster Marshall Overdevelopment Access Mr And Mrs Hopkins Object Kilvey Wildlife 26 B Church Hill Close Traffic Access R And M Daniels Object 10 Sheridan Way Boundaries Sturminster Marshall Overlooking Context Mr Butler Objection 6 Sheridan Way Overdevelopment Sturminster Marshall Out of character Loss of privacy Mr And Mrs Martin Object
3 8 Sheridan Way Overlooking Sturminster Marshall Loss of privacy Trees Siobhan Myock Object 2 Malwood Concerns re Traffic, Flooding and inadequate sewage Moor Lane system Over development of site Out of keeping with area Mr J Bennett Object 100 High Street Overlooking concerns Sturminster Marshall Concerns of location for affordable housing Green belt Mr And Mrs D Woodiwiss Objects 94 High Street Insufficient Parking / Danger to Highway Users Sturminster Marshall Increased Traffic Loss of Privacy Light Pollution Risk to Health Mrs S Dyer object 15 Churchill Close overdevelopment Sturminster Marshall traffic/parking concerns Wimborne, Dorset overlooking Mr And Mrs S Pugh Object 67 High Street Infrastucture is at full capacity Sturminster Minster Traffic/parking concerns Wildlife concerns Mr And Mrs Davison Object 5 King Street Surface water Sturminster Marshall Loss of character Traffic/parking Mr And Mrs Thomas Object 51 Churchill Close Parking/traffic Sturminster Marshall Mrs Anderson Object 65 High Street Access Sturminster Marshall Traffic/parking Mr Anderson Object 65 High Street Access Sturminster Marshall Traffic/parking R Tilling Object 61 High Street Floodplain Sturminster Marshall Sewerage Owner/occupier Object 142 High Street Traffic/parking Sturminster Marshall Too many dwellings E House Object 140 High Street Sturminster Marshall P Cross Object 77 High Street Access Sturminster Marshall J Tipping Object No Address Given Traffic/parking Sewers
4 Further e-mail rec'd 9/8/08 - Object Owner And Occupier Objects 105 High Street Historic Building Sturminster Marshall Flood Risk to Area Traffic Congestion will get Worse Residential Properties Overlooked Not in Keeping Detrimental to Wildlife Light Pollution M Woodbine Objects 4 Station Road Overloaded Sewer System Sturminster Marshall Inadequate Visibility at Access Light Pollution Wildlife Habitats Threatened Owner/Occupier Object 1 High Close Access Sturminster Marshall Flooding Drains V Gunther Object 95 High Street Sewers Sturminster Marshall Flooding Parking Traffic Safety Street Lighting R And G Boyd Object 16 Balls Lane Traffic Sturminster Marshall Amenities Remain a Village not a Town A And J Dean Object 28A Churchill Close Traffic Sturminster Marshall Sewers Mr And Mrs Taylor Object Forge Cottage Traffic 12 King's Street Sewers Ms Cure Object 41 Churchill Close Land should be green belt Sturminster Marshall Housing Needs Schools Sewers Water / Services Light Pollution Wildlife Mr And Mrs Jones Object 25 King's Street Infrastructure Sturminster Marshall Access Water Sewers Character of area S B Cobb Object 130 High Street Access Sturminster Marshall Traffic Safety Amenities
5 Drainage Mr And Mrs Fuller Objects 82 High Street Drainage issues Sturminster Marshall Congestion near to school Weighted towards financial gain not needs of local people Mrs Fernandez Object 102 High Street Sewers Sturminster Marshall Traffic Street Lighting Sue King I object to the planning application on the grounds that it is 3 Sheriden Way inappropriate to the character of the village to add yet Sturminster Marshall another housing estate in addition to the increase in traffic Dorset it would cause which would be detrimental to the village which has enough problems coping with traffic volume etc D F Monk Object 73 High Street Parking/traffic Sturminster Marshall Mr & Mrs P Windle Object 83 High Street Safety Sturminster Marshall Traffic Parking Rachel Bennion-Pedley Object 51 High Street traffic/parking Sturminster Marshall infrastructure Mr & Mrs Dance Object 69 High Street noise Sturminster Marshall traffic flooding light pollution overdevelopment P Hanwell Object 105b High Street traffic concerns Sturminster Marshall F Freeman Object 135 Church Street sewers Sturminster Marshall traffic flooding change the character of the area Mr And Mrs Davidson Object 5 Kings Street Land should be returned to green belt Sturminster Marshall Address should be listed and demolition prevented Mr And Mrs Williams Object 84 High Street sewerage/drainage Sturminster Marshall traffic/parking Owner/Occupier Object 16 Churchill Close parking/traffic Sturminster Marshall drains V Lewis Object 3 Reeves Orchard Sturminster Marshall Mr P Mounty Object 5 Sheridan Way infrastructure at full capacity Sturminster Marshall traffic/parking E Gant Object
6 106 High Street traffic/parking Sturminster Marshall sewers J Push Object Maggies Cottage sewer system High Street drains traffic/parking light pollution loss of wildlife Mr And Mrs Coomer Object 23 Station Road traffic/parking Sturminster Marshall Mr And Mrs Mattingly Object Brownsea access Townsend traffic/parking sewer system Mr And Mrs Cook Object 4 Station Road sewer system Sturminster Marshall traffic/parking wildlife D K Greenwell Object 79 High Street traffic/parking Sturminster Marshall sewer system electricity supply light pollution Mr And Mrs Grinter Object 17 Station Road traffic/parking Sturminster Marshall sewer system Mr And Mrs Mitchell Object Plantians traffic Moor Lane sewage system Mr S Tipping Object No Address Supplied Traffic Extra houses put strain on sewers and add to flooding A G Jessopp Ltd Object 5 Balena Close traffic Creekmoor Ind Estate damage to character Claire Moroney Very concerned for the safety of the children in and out of New House the housing development as there will obviously not be Moor Lane adequate safe pathways as the entrance is not wide enough. The sightline for pedestrians using the pavements and for us residents coming out of our driveways next to this development will be very dangerous indeed. We are also concerned with the play area that is proposed - we believe that there may be a risk of the local teenagers using this at night (as they do on the village green) drinking and smoking. There will be no restrictions and will not be lockable. The area is proposed very close the existing houses - why not propose it further into the development for their own use? This is a lovely quiet area, but could all be changed with the volume of traffic in and out of the development and the temptation to kids to use the play area as a 'hangout'.
7 Officers Report:
This application comes before Members as the recommendation differs from the comments of the Parish Council. There have also been 74 letters of objection to date, from local residents and businesses.
Site Description The site comprises a field to the rear of 90 to 100 High Street and enclosed by properties in Moor Lane and Sheriden Way, with the Golf Course to the rear. A fairly thick hedgerow of predominantly Ash trees forms the boundary with the Golf Course and a mix of walls, fences and shrubs with the adjoining properties.
The site area measures 0.65 hectares of land that was excluded from the Green Belt in the East Dorset Local Plan dated 2002. The site therefore falls within the urban area and is suitable for housing development in principle, subject to the usual policy and development control considerations. This was clearly understood by the Inspector who considered that matter in relation to the Local Plan revision.
Planning History There have been two previous applications in 2002 (ref: 3/02/0501) and 2003 (ref: 3/03/0508), which sought to develop this application site with a further area to the north, to the rear of Sheriden Way for 19 and 20 dwellings. Both of these applications were refused and the second dismissed on appeal because it failed to secure provision of affordable housing or open space, as there was no guarantee that the site could be developed comprehensively. A further application in 2004 (ref:3/04/1403) for 4 dwellings, on the land to the rear of Sheriden Way, beyond the current application site, was also refused and dismissed on appeal, as it did not propose an appropriate dwelling mix or make best use of urban land.
Regarding the need for a comprehensive development of the total site (that is both the application site and the land to the north, it is helpful for Members to note that the appeal proposal was dependant on one access to the shared site, whereas the current proposal offers a new access to the site between 90 and 92 High Street, which would not prevent the remainder and much smaller part of the land being developed separately from Sheriden Way.
Current Proposal This proposal is for 21 dwellings with a mix of house types and also market, shared ownership and social rented housing. There are 3x1 bedroom dwellings, 5x2 bedroom dwellings, 2x3 bedroom dwellings and 11x 4 bedroom dwellings. All the 4 bedroom dwellings and 1x3 bed and 1x2 bed are market housing. Shared ownership properties are 1x3 bed and 2x2 bed. All three of the one bed dwellings are Social Rented properties and also two of the two bed dwellings. There are therefore 5 social rented properties and 3 shared ownership. The total percentage of affordable housing therefore amounts to 38% and this is considered to meet the policy requirement of HODEV5 and Supplementary Planning Guidance which seeks to achieve up to a 40% contribution through negotiations.
21 dwellings on this site of 0.65 hectares equates to a density of 32.3 dwellings per hectare, (which is at the lower end of densities considered appropriate in urban areas).
A Local Area of Play is proposed as part of the development which would be transferred to the Local Authority for maintenance and would be the subject of a Section 106 Agreement.
8 The proposals also include full design details of the dwellings including materials for the houses and hard-surfaces, and also landscaping and parking details.
Planning Policy
The Adopted Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan (2001) and the East Dorset Local Plan (adopted January 2002) contains many ‘saved’ policies which remain the relevant development policies in assessing this scheme. The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West, incorporating the Secretary of State’s proposed changes was issued in July this year. The Council has agreed on 3 September 2008 to have regard to the emerging policies and these would therefore form part of the material planning considerations in dealing with this planning application.
PPS1 and PPS3 have both set the context for assessing the design and density of the current proposal and are relevant Government Policy.
This guidance advises that good design ensures attractive, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development and should contribute positively to making places better for people. The minimum density recommended in PPS3 is 30 dwellings per hectare for new developments. (The Regional Spatial Strategy policy H2 seeks 40 dwellings per hectare averaged across the South East Dorset Housing Market Area).
Other relevant national advice relating to this application is contained in PPS25 regarding flood risk and surface water, PPS 22 on Renewable Energy and PPS9 regarding Biodiversity and the impact on Dorset Heathlands.
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) policy RE5 requires at least 10% of the energy to be used in new development of more than 10 dwellings should come from renewable or low carbon sources, unless it is not feasible.
From the Structure Plan, Settlement Policy H and Environment Policy H both apply and refer to the importance of design scale and layout and relating them to the distinctive attributes of each settlement.
From East Dorset Local Plan Policies Policy RCDEV2 applies to the provision of a Locally Equipped Area of Play within the site. Housing policies HODEV1, HODEV2 and HODEV5 apply and also design Policies DES5, DES6, DES8, DES9, DES10, and DES11. There is also a specific Sturminster Marshall Policy SM1 which indicates that the village is excluded from the Green Belt. Lighting Policy LTDEV1 encourages minimising the effects of lighting, TRANS2 requires visibility for new accesses onto the Highway network and minimum parking and turning standards to be met.
Planning Considerations
This application has been assessed against this policy background and is concluded now complies with each of the policies that apply to this site.
Renewable Energy With regard to the RSS policy, the agent has confirmed that 10% of the energy used at this site will come from a renewable or low carbon source. Details of this have yet to be refined but could be the subject of a planning condition.
Heathland Mitigation
9 With regard to the impact on the Dorset Heathlands, as this site lies within 5 km of the internationally designated heathland sites, of Corfe Mullen Pastures, Corfe and Barrow Hills and Upton Heath, a Unilateral Planning Obligation has been submitted with the scheme which secures mitigation against harmful effects to the heathland through use by the residents and pets of the new 21 dwellings. The Unilateral Obligation ensures payment on commencement of development towards mitigation measures agreed by Natural England in accordance with the Natural Habitats Regulations 1994. The proposal is therefore in accord with the spirit of PPS9.
Flood Risk and Drainage This site has been identified as having potential risk. Many of the letters of objection and the Parish Comments refer to the site flooding in the past and current problems with surface water run-off in the High Street and the village generally.
The site does not lie within an area identified by the Environment Agency as of 1 in 100 year Flood Risk. However, the site has been identified as a potential Flood Risk site in the recent research of the Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment for Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset, and Salisbury carried out by Halcrow Group Limited and adopted by this Council earlier this year. On this basis a Flood Risk assessment was requested of the applicant together with a Foul and Surface water Drainage Strategy.
These documents have been assessed by the Environment Agency, the Council’s Drainage Engineer and Wessex Water. All three consultees are satisfied that due to the higher level of the land on this site than surrounding land it is not likely to flood. With regard to the Surface water run off, all three are satisfied that appropriate measures are in place to accommodate run-off from this development within soakaways in the site and a large soak-away under the play area. Infiltration tests have shown that the strata under the top soil is highly permeable and therefore suitable for soakaways. On this basis it is not considered that this proposal will lead to an increase in surface water run-off outside the site boundaries. As a further precaution the Environment Agency have requested a condition with regard to surface water.
Wessex Water have confirmed that they have reached an agreement with the developer with regard to upgrade of the sewerage pumping system to cope with the addition of 21 dwellings to the existing system.
As a result of these comments it is concluded that the new development will have no adverse effect in terms of surface water drainage and that the foul drainage will be adequately dealt with. The proposal therefore complies with the requirements of PPS25.
Open Space The Local Area of Play is designed for children under 6. It measures 10m by 10m with hedging around it. The area has timber gates to prevent access by dogs and contains seating for carers. It is within 100m walking distance from all houses within the development and meets with the standards for open space provision as set out in Appendix C of the East Dorset Local Plan, fully complying with RCDEV2. The provision of this area and its future management will be subject to the terms of a Section 106 Agreement regarding its future management.
Biodiversity A biodiversity survey identified no bat roosts, badgers, or reptiles on the site other than possibly slow worms. It recommended appropriate timings for hedge cutting and also inclusion of new hedging which forms part of the landscaping proposals. There are therefore no concerns about wildlife and their habitats and the scheme complies with the requirements of PPS9.
10 Affordable Housing The proposal fully complies with Policy HODEV5 in relation to the provision of affordable housing, with 5 properties for rent from registered social landlords and 3 properties for shared ownership with registered social landlords. The heads of terms of the Section 106 agreement have already been discussed and accepted in principle, such that upon signing the agreement 8 more affordable units can be added to the East Dorset housing stock. This level of provision amounts to 38% of the housing within the development which is almost at the target level of 40% one further dwelling would have provided 42% and therefore it was considered reasonable to accept the provision of 8 units as the nearest amount to the target of 40%.
Design With regard to the Housing Policies of the East Dorset Local Plan this proposal has a layout which accords with HODEV2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan. The density of 32.3 houses per hectare is considered to make best use of urban land in this rural settlement whilst creating a layout which accords with the informality of such a settlement.
A design objective for the proposals has been to reinforce local distinctiveness following the principles of the Countryside Design Guide, given that the site is in a rural settlement. The Council’s Design Officer confirms that the proposed design has addressed some of the earlier design concerns and meets the Council for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) criteria for “Building for Life.” Subject to good quality building materials and landscaping the scheme will be of good design. The scheme also now complies with all the design policies of the East Dorset Local Plan.
92 High Street at the front of the site is a thatched property which is to be retained and much attention has been given to creating a solid division between the new access drive and its main garden area. A new hedge will be planted alongside the new footpath to recreate an informal and rural appearance at the entrance of the site. One other new thatched cottage is included within the cul-de-sac to follow this visual cue.
Amended plans were received following comments from the Council’s Design Officer to create more curves in the shared surface road layout and better spacing between plots to afford glimpses through to the hedges on the golf course to the rear. More landscaping has been introduced onto the frontages by varying the building line.
Impact on Neighbours In terms of relationships with surrounding development, the proposals maintain more than 20m back of building to back of building with properties in Sheriden Way that abut directly onto the site and provide a post and rail fence with new hedge as a boundary. As the boundary hedge may take some time to establish, 1.8m high fencing would provide a better immediate screen for the properties in Sheriden Way, whilst the hedge grows up in the rear gardens of plots 9-11 and this is dealt with by Condition 11 of the recommendation.
Distances backing onto the High Street properties are closer to 30 metres and a landscape buffer is provided on the boundary. Against Moor Lane there is a gap of 15 metres from side of 19 to rear of 1and 2 Moor Lane and 15 metres from the new plot to the rear of plots 20 and 21 which have no windows at first floor level facing them. This aspect of the development therefore allows for adequate amenity to remain for existing houses and appropriate boundary treatments to blend in with the character of the area.
Road Layout
11 With regard to policy TRANS 2 of the East Dorset Local Plan, there have been several attempts to improve the road layout to provide a shared surface design, using a mix of finishes allowing for pedestrians, on street parking and also room for and cars to pass and turn. The road has a width of 6 metres and has an informal layout to reflect the rural setting. Although there is a substantial area of hardsurfacing in the proposal, the drainage aspects have been fully addressed. The road is now detailed to an adoptable standard and provides adequate visibility onto the High Street. With appropriate conditions, the County Highway Officer is satisfied with the road layout and parking arrangements. The road layout therefore now complies with policy.
Lighting The initial plans for this site included street lighting but this has been removed to prevent light pollution into the countryside at night, and also to retain the unlit character of a large part of Sturminster Marshall at present. However, the underground circuitry will be provided as part of the road layout in case lighting is required in the future. Lighting therefore now complies with Policy LTDEV1.
Conclusion This scheme complies with the relevant national and local policies, including the need to provide affordable housing. The concerns of the residents in many instances reflect an objection of principle, which cannot be supported in view of the site history relating to the Local Plan. Other concerns of local residents have been fully considered in the above analysis. This recommendation is subject to the signing of Section 106 agreements in relation to Open Space and Affordable Housing provision as pre-requisite.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.
3 No development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority shall have approved: The specification of the type of construction proposed for the roads and/or footpaths including all relevant horizontal cross sections and longitudinal sections showing the existing and proposed levels each with details of highway drainage and disposal of surface water.
Reason: To enable the Local Highway Authority in conjunction with the Local Planning Authority to give further consideration to these matters and to ensure the well planned and proper construction of the roads.
12 4 Before any foundation of any individual building is dug on land forming the subject of this application, a new estate road shall be constructed from the carriageway of the existing highway to the site of that building. The minimum requirements for this estate road shall be concrete foundations to kerb, hardcore laid level to the top of the kerb foundations and suitably blinded, soil and surface water drainage laid complete with road gullies and gratings all to an approved specification. No building shall be occupied until such time as the carriageway and footway/ footpath have been constructed up to and including base course surfacing complete with kerbing and street lighting to the approved specification from the site of the building to the existing adopted highway.
Reason: To ensure that individual dwellings or buildings are accurately set out in accordance with the approved layout and an adequate means of access is available when the dwelling or building is under construction and when it is occupied.
5 Within a period of two years (or such period as may be defined in any separate Agreement concluded with the Local Highway Authority pursuant to Section 38 Highway Act 1980), or within six months of the completion of 75% of the buildings if this is sooner, completion of the roadworks shall occur. This will entail the making good of works previously undertaken and the final surfacing, grassing and landscaping all to the approved specification. (Nothing in this condition shall conflict with any phasing scheme in which respect it will be interpreted as applying to a particular phase).
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and a well co-ordinated development.
6 The retention or siting of any poles, lighting columns or similar obstructions in the visibility splays shall not be permitted unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with Local Highway Authority before work commences.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
7 The visibility splays shall be laid out and the first 10 metres of the estate road measured from the adopted highway, shall be constructed up to and including the base course construction of the carriageway and footways, before any other site operations commence.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
8 A plan shall be submitted showing details of highway drainage and disposal to the specification and satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. All works shown thereon shall be completed before any foundation of any individual building is dug on land forming the subject of this application.
Reason: To ensure the well-planned construction of the road.
9 Notwithstanding provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, no fence or wall shall be erected in any garden area or driveway fronting the new access road without planning permission first being obtained.
13 Reason: To retain the informal landscaped layout hereby approved and preserve character and setting of the development.
10 Details of the external surfaces shall be carried out in accordance with Drawing No 499-2, other than the details of driveway surfaces which should also be of tarmacadam with rolled local buff gravel finish, or alternative to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development retains the rural character of the area.
11 Landscaping and fencing proposals for the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping and fencing drawing no: 499-1 with the exception of the timber post and rail fence along the rear of Plots 9-11, which shall be replaced with a 1.8m high close boarded fence and the hedge shown on the plan. New planting shall be carried out during the planting season October to March inclusive in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc. in BS4428:1969(1979)immediately following commencement of development. The landscaping shall be thereafter maintained for a period of 5 years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall be retained. All fencing and boundary walls shall be constructed prior to occupation of the dwelling to which they are associated.
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.
12 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(s), porch, garden shed, greenhouse, garage or car port shall be erected nor any hardstanding area extended without express planning permission first being obtained for plots 1 to11 or 20 and 21.
Reason: In the interests of controlling matters which may be detrimental to the original visual concept and the balance of private space provision on this layout which has been developed at a high density.
13 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning space, garaging and parking shown on the approved plan has been constructed and these shall be maintained and be kept available for that purpose at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
14 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the garages to plots 10, 14 and 15, shall be used solely for the accommodation of private vehicles belonging to the occupiers of the property to which it is shown to be related by the terms of the application and the deposited plans. Further, and notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the garage shall be retained for this purpose and shall not be converted to any other domestic accommodation without express planning permission first being obtained.
Reason: Due to the need to retain off street parking provision in accordance with the Council policy.
14 15 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 (rear) elevation (such expression to include the roof and wall) of Plots 20 and 21 or the north (rear) elevation (such expression to include the roof and wall) of Plots 9, 10 or 11, hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties.
16 At least 10% of the energy to be used in the individual dwellings on the site shall come from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources. Details of the energy options shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and the approved schemes shall be implemented in full and thereafter retained.
Reason: In order to assist in meeting the UK's targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, in accordance with policy RE5 of the Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy.
17 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water run-off limitation incorporating sustainable drainage principles, in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (Such Salinger Peters, August 2008), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable agreed.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.
18 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of proposed ground levels and finished floor levels, in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (Such Salinger Peters, August 2008), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All levels shall be related to Ordnance Datum.
Reason: To ensure the development is at minimum risk of flooding.
Informatives:
1 There must be no interruption to the surface water drainage system of the surrounding land as a result of the operations on the site. Provisions must be made to ensure that all existing drainage systems continue to operate effectively and that owners of neighbouring sites are not adversely affected
2 This grant of permission is to be read in conjunction with two Legal Agreements dated **** entered into between East Dorset District Council and ****.
3 The applicant/s has/have provided a unilateral undertaking dated **** to pay the appropriate contribution in relation to Heathland mitigation as required by the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009 (as amended).
4 This Council has had regard to PPS1, PPS3, PPS9, PPS22 and PPG25 in the determination of this application.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
15 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: RCDEV2 HODEV1 HODEV2 HODEV5 DES5 DES6 DES8 DES9 DES10 DES11 LTDEV1 SM1 TRANS2 SH ENH
Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/08/0659/FUL
Proposal: Retain refuse bin stores and 2 storage buildings (retrospective)
Site Address: 112 Station Road, West Moors, Ferndown, for Roxan Construction Ltd
Constraints BIA 45m Urban Area Windfarm Birdstrike
Site Notice expired: 4 July 2008 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 1 July 2008
West Moors Parish Council No objection. Comments:
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Tree Section No arboricultural objections
Neighbour Comments:
Residents Of Berkeley Court Object 10 Berkeley Court, West Moors Overbearing (9 signatures)
Officers Report:
This application is on the agenda because a letter of objection contains signatures from more than four households. The letter is from 10 Berkeley Court and it has been signed by the occupiers of seven other flats.
This development of 12 flats in Station Road has recently been completed (3/05/0754). However, a bin store and 2 storage buildings have been erected which were not shown on the original plans. This is therefore a retrospective application which seeks to retain these structures.
The bin store is adjacent to the access and the storage buildings are on both boundaries. The one on the northern boundary is next to the site of 114 Station Road where the same developer has planning permission to build a similar block of flats. These two structures do not have any significant visual impact and are therefore clearly acceptable.
The storage building on the southern boundary is close to the boundary with the adjacent Berkeley Court flats and the roof can be seen above the adjacent hedgerow (which is as high as the eaves of this building) when viewed from a number of forward and side facing first floor windows. The issues are not as clear cut in this instance. This is not a particularly sensitive location for this building. However, it is only the roof which can be seen and the
16 impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent flats as result of looking out towards the roof of the store would not be so detrimental to their outlook that a refusal of planning permission would be justified.
There is no harm to the appearance of the Area of Special Character in terms of general public impact from Station Road.
The site layout and block plan which accompanies this application, shows an alternative car parking layout to accommodate the bin stores together with a reduction in the number of spaces from 17 to 12. The applicant was advised that this was not acceptable to your officers and the application was deferred to enable the matter to be resolved.
A revised parking layout (and reinstatement of the original 17 spaces on site) now forms part of a separate application (3/08/1100) to be dealt with elsewhere on this agenda (item 13). If members are minded to grant planning permission for the new bin store and storage buildings, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to the effect that the new parking layout be provided within 3 months of the date of the permission, otherwise the buildings should be demolished .Subject to the above, there is a recommendation that planning permission be granted.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The structures hereby permitted shall be demolished and all materials resulting from their demolition shall be removed from the site within one month of the date of the failure to meet the following requirement:- (1) within three months of the date of this decision, the revised parking layout shown on amended drawing 3099-PL-011 revision G as appended to this permission (and also approved in the linked permission 3/08/1100) shall be constructed and available for use in all respects.
Reason: The proposal as constructed on site is at variance with the approved plans and fails to provide satisfactory parking provision on site. The implementation of the above mentioned parking layout would address this shortfall.
Informatives:
1 The car parking layout shown on the submitted drawing 3099-PL-011 rev D does not form part of this proposal and is not approved as part of this planning permission which relates solely to the bin stores and storage buildings.
2 This permission is granted in accordance with Section 63 (2) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Policy Considerations and Reasons In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8 BUCON6
Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/08/0788/FUL
17 Proposal: Erect Boundary Wall as amended by plans received 07.10.2008 to delete pier on wall facing access
Site Address: Hunters Lodge, High Street, Sturminster Marshall, for Ms Elizabeth Lockton
Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Conservation Area Urban Area
Site Notice expired: 16 August 2008 Advert expired: 22 August 2008 Nbr-Nfn expired: 15 September 2008
Sturminster Marshall Objection: Parish Council Comments: The wall is too big and too obtrusive and spoils the openness of the Conservation Area. Not in keeping with street scene. Discrepancy in plans, The distance from Hunters Lodge to 142 High Street shown as 2 metres less than actual. Gives concern re access for emergency vehicles.
Sturminster Marshall Objection Parish Council Comments: The wall is too big and too obtrusive and spoils the openness of the conservation area. Not in keeping with street scene. Discrepancy in plans, the distance form Hunters Lodge to 142 High Street shown a 2 metres less that actual gives concern re access of emergency vehicles.
Consultee Responses:
County Highways No objection Development Liaison Officer
EDDC Design And No objection Conservation
County Highways No objection Development Liaison Officer
Neighbour Comments:
Peter Lewis I attended the Parish Council meeting regarding another 32 Charborough Way planning issue and learned of this planning request then. I Sturminster Marshall am concerned about the visual impact of this wall in what I believe is a conservation area. I think it would be out of character and would visually spoil this charming part of our village. Additionally the wall looks higher than the wall of 140 High Street and also that if that height of wall is used, it won't achieve the goal of stopping lights in the window. P Stout I have already submitted a letter. However I have more 142 High Street specific supplementary information regarding fire safety Sturminster Marshall access. Building Regulations 'Approved Document B' Section 5, 'Access for fire appliances' gives minimum widths and turning radii for fire appliances. The submitted plans do
18 not comply with these requirements in terms of both road width and turning radius. Although the drawings as presented in the application may appear to comply, these drawings are not scaled correctly. When scaled correctly, it is clear that these building regulation requirements cannot be met with the proposal at drawn. A compliant submission would following the existing clear line of use and, maybe not coincidentally, would follow the line on the deed plans of all five dwellings using this access road. Please bear in mind that relevant widths should be measured perpendicular to the normal line of vehicle travel, essentially following the radius of the curve. For the record, nothing contained in this submission shall be considered to modify any rights of way or other easements enjoyed by the commentator and others, which exceed the minimum statutory requirements - these comments are without prejudice. Philip Stout We note that amendments have been made which may 142 High Street affect properties 142 to 146 but we have not received any notification of those changes. Phil Stout Further to previous comment sent today, we have received 142 High Street in today’s post a formal notice of these changes, so that comment is no longer valid. Mr & Mrs P Stout Object The Old Barn Concerns over access to 4 adjoining properties 142 High Street Highway and pedestrian safety concerns Concerns over parking area and brick planter to rear of development Further letter rec'd 15.9.08 Still very concerned Mr & Mrs Masterman Object 142A High Street Dropped kerb no longer in alignment with access route Sturminster Marshall Boundary concerns Further letter received 15/9/08 Additional comments: concerns over parking area access concerns Mr J & Mrs H Rice Object 144 High Street Traffic concerns re shared driveway Sturminster Marshall Right of way concerns
Officers Report:
This application is for the erection of a 1500mm tall brick boundary wall at the front and part of the side of this detached two storey dwelling in the conservation area. Bricks that have been salvaged from the conversion of the old workshop are to be used to construct it and work has commenced on the foundation.
The design of the wall originally proposed two brick piers, one attached to the dwelling fronting onto the High Street, and the other facing the access that leads to the properties to the rear of the application site. Two angular joints direct the wall back into the site from the pier attached to the dwelling, where it then joins a second brick pier, before curving down in height to stop short of the pedestrian access to the dwelling.
19 Amended plans have now been submitted (7.10.2008) to delete the pier facing the access following Officers' advice, therefore only a single pier is proposed.
The appearance of the wall is considered to be appropriate for its location in the Conservation Area, and no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area is expected. The proposal is also considered to be in the spirit of the advice set out in PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment, and approval is recommended.
Several of the letters of objection, and the representations of the Parish Council refer to issues that are associated with the planning permission for the conversion of the building to a dwelling that was granted in 2006 (06/0344). These are separate to the issues raised by the current application to build a wall, and will be dealt with by Officers separately.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the wall hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling known as Hunters Lodge unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing.
Informatives:
1 Regard was had to the advice set out in PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) in the determination of this application.
2 As the wall that has been applied for has been commenced without planning permission, this permission is granted in accordance with Section 63 (2) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8
Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/08/0929/FUL
Proposal: Retain Unauthorised Stable Block and Hardstanding for Use in Connection with Sheep Rearing
Site Address: Sutton Farm, Sutton, Wimborne, for Mr D Tanner
Constraints Area of Great Landscape Value LP Green Belt LP
Site Notice expired: 5 October 2008 Advert expired:
20 Nbr-Nfn expired: 2 October 2008
Knowlton Parish Council Support - As Sutton Farm has been a working farm for Comments: many years and is in a location which does not affect any neighbours.
Consultee Responses:
Neighbour Comments:
Officers Report:
This planning application is brought to the Committee for determination as the officer recommendation of refusal is at variance with the Parish Council’s support of the application.
Policies:
This site is within the Green Belt and in an Area of Great Landscape Value. Government guidance in PPG2 and PPS7 apply to the consideration of this proposal. Policies CSIDE1, LSCON2 and DES8 of the EDLP also apply.
History and Description of Proposal:
The application is for the retention of an unauthorised stable block with seven stables and an area of hardstanding, for use in connection with sheep rearing. The applicants have stated that this was constructed two or three years ago. The stable block totals 131sq.m and the hardstanding 1332sq.m. This is on a farm which is now mainly arable, fruit and vegetables. There are a number of agricultural buildings on the site, including large buildings for the storage of grain. There are also a number of older buildings including former pig pens, cow sheds and milking sheds. Some of these are now being used for the storage of machinery.
The applicants have stated that there was formerly an outbuilding on the site, approximately 2/3 the size of the new building, which was redundant and the building the subject of this application was a replacement.
There are two valid Enforcement Notices in place for the removal of this building and the area of hardstanding.
An application in 2007 ref: 3/07/1076/FUL for the retention of the stable block and hardstanding was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal. At the time of that appeal, the applicants claimed that the stables were for private use but could also be used for small scale commercial purposes as part of a farm diversification project. However, the Inspector gave little weight to this argument as no business plan had been provided to show how such a venture would operate or how it would contribute to the financial viability of the farm enterprise. The Inspector also gave only limited weight to the contention that there had previously been an agricultural building on this part of the site which had been demolished in 2005, as aerial photographs taken in 1998 and 2004 showed no such building. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector considered that the building was large for a private stable block, that it failed to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and was harmful to the character of the AGLV.
Following the dismissal of this appeal, the applicants have considered the options open to them and possible alternative uses of the building, hence the current application. The building, measures 10.6m x 14.4m along its longest side. Currently one of the stables is
21 used as a shelter for the sheep dog and another for hay storage. There are currently 6 Suffolk lambs on the farm which are grazing on a nearby field. Sheep rearing is a new venture for the applicant. The case officer on visiting the site was informed that the aim is to replace the Suffolk sheep with Zwartbles and for there to be a maximum of 20 breeding ewes as she would manage the flock on her own. Also, that the stables would be used in connection with the sheep during lambing.
Main Issues
The main issues in the consideration of this proposal are:
Would the building and hardstanding have been Permitted Development if it had been put up for agricultural purposes (and not been unlawful as in this instance) and is the building genuinely and reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture for this farm? The impact of the building on the Green Belt and AGLV?
The applicants have stated in their Design and Access Statement that the building was originally erected for the purposes of sheep rearing. However, in the applicants previous Grounds of Appeal Statement for application 3/07/1076 for the retention of the stable block and winter exercising yard, it was stated that this building was “purpose built stables for a small number of horses”, that “the location provided the ideal site for stables and a winter exercise area for horses”, that “as the applicant himself has horses and his tenant of Sutton Farmhouse also had horses, it was felt that private facilities were all that they required…although in the longer term the stables and exercise are would be suitable for a small livery yard”.
Therefore it is clear that the existing building was not erected for the purposes of sheep rearing but for providing seven stables for horses. The next issue is whether a new building the same size as the existing stables block, built specifically for the purposes of providing accommodation in relation to sheep rearing on the site, would be Agricultural Permitted Development. Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 states that on farming units of 5ha or more works for the erection, extension or alteration of a building is Permitted Development if it is ‘reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit’. It must also comply with various other restrictions including its size, height, siting. If ‘it would involve the provision of a building, structure or works not designed for agricultural purposes’ then it would not be Permitted Development.
Sheep rearing is a new venture for the applicant, with only six lambs on site at the present time. The applicant has provided details from the National Sheep Association of the type of sheep proposed. This states that the Zwartbles is a breed of sheep which, due to their shape, ‘make for very easy lambing and it is unusual for any assistance to be required at lambing time’. Zwartbles ewes are very maternal and as the lambs are quickly on their feet after birth, mothering is not a problem’. The supporting letter to the application states that the proposal is to build up a flock of approximately fifty sheep. This is at variance with the applicant’s confirmation to the case officer on site that the intention is to have no more than twenty breeding ewes. There are only six sheep on site at the present time, with the intention to build up to a maximum of twenty ewes, of a breed of sheep which requires very little care and attention at lambing time, it is considered that the existing building of seven stables, or a new purpose built building of similar size, would be excessively large for the scale and type of sheep rearing proposed. In addition, there are other redundant farm buildings which, following some restoration, could be used for sheep pens should the need arise. In the light of the information on site and submitted with the application, it is
22 considered that there is no compelling evidence that a building of this size is ‘reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit’ and therefore it would not be agricultural Permitted Development.
Therefore, the next issue is whether the proposal conforms with the requirements of National and Local Plan policies in respect of its impact on the Green Belt and the AGLV. National Guidance on Green Belts in PPG2 makes it clear that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for certain defined purposes, including agriculture and forestry and outdoor sport and recreation.
The Inspector in respect of the previous appeal for the retention of the stable block and exercise area considered this issue and concluded that ‘I do not consider that a stable block of this size can be considered to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. To the extent that it would consolidate and intensify built development in an open and essentially agricultural landscape, the character of the AGLV would also be harmed’. In respect of the exercise yard, the Inspector stated that ‘in my opinion this structure would reduce the openness of the Green Belt, by introducing a hard surface, with fencing, into a previously undeveloped area of the farm’. The Inspector concluded that ‘the development amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and further, that it would materially harm the open character of the Green Belt and, particularly in the case of the stable block, the landscape character of the AGLV. As such the development conflicts with the national advice on Green Belts given in PPG2…the stable block also conflicts with Local Plan policies DES8 and LSCON2, insofar as the scale, bulk and visual impact of the development is detrimental to the open, essentially agricultural character of the AGLV’.
The building and hardstanding proposed to be retained under this application is exactly the same as that considered by the Inspector in respect of the previous appeal. Therefore, the same conclusions apply equally to this application as the previous one, in respect of its impact on the Green Belt and AGLV.
Conclusion
No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the retention of this large building and hardstanding for the new sheep rearing enterprise. It has not been demonstrated that the level and type of sheep rearing proposed justifies these facilities. The building is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within this farming unit.
The fact that there may have been an agricultural building on the same site, approximately 2/3 the floor area and height of the new building, demolished in the early part of the 1990s carries very limited weight. The hardstanding replaced a former orchard, introducing hard surfacing and fencing and generally increased the amount of built form in this area. In line with the previous decision and Inspectors conclusions, the building and hardstanding amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, harmful to the open character of the Green Belt and AGLV, contrary to PPG2 and Policies LSCON2 and DES8 of the EDLP. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated that justify granting this application contrary to the above Policies and National guidance.
The application is therefore recommended for refusal.
Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-
Reasons:-
23 1 The proposed development lies within the Green Belt as defined in the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000, and identified in the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 and also within an Area of Great Landscape value as defined in the East Dorset Local Plan. Within the Green Belt it is intended that no new development shall be permitted except that reasonably required in connection with agriculture or forestry or other uses appropriate including essential facilities for sport and recreation. The Local Planning Authority considers that, on the basis of the information submitted with the application and at the time of the site visit, that the scale and type of the proposed sheep rearing enterprises does not justify a building as large as the existing stable block and that there are redundant agricultural buildings on the site which could be used in connection with the sheep rearing enterprise. The building and hardstanding do not amount to essential facilities and therefore the proposal amounts to inappropriate development which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and contrary to the purposes of including the land within it. The Local Planning Authority have carefully considered the supporting information that has been submitted with the application but do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that there are any circumstances that are so special so as to outweigh the Green Belt policies, the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the reasons for including the land within it. In addition, the scale of the building and hardstanding are considered to be excessive and are out of keeping with the open and rural character of the area and the particular landscape quality and character of this Area of Great Landscape Value. The development is therefore contrary to Government Guidance in Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts, and policies LSCON2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: LSCON2 DES8
Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/08/0955/FUL
Proposal: Single Storey 30 Bedroom Hotel Extension, Reception and Covered Way
Site Address: Dudsbury Golf Club , 64 Christchurch Road, Ferndown, for Dudsbury Golf Club Ltd
Constraints Airport Safeguarding (All) Green Belt LP
Site Notice expired: 11 September 2008 Advert expired: 12 September 2008 Nbr-Nfn expired: 8 September 2008
Ferndown Town Council No objection Comments:
Consultee Responses:
County Highways No Objection, Subject to conditions Development Liaison Officer
24 Safeguarding Officer No objection subject to a condition re: external lighting
Natural England
Neighbour Comments:
Peter Miller Design a vast improvement but concerns over: 50 Christchurch Road "Dovecote" tower Ferndown Gable - Out of character Noise concerns Terry Meads Object 95 Christchurch Road Green Belt Ferndown Traffic concerns Mr & Mrs Blunden Letter of objection has been posted. 48 Christchurch Road Issues being - Noise, traffic and security. Ferndown Further letter received - reiterating concerns above David Winsall I object to the proposal as there will be more traffic outside Links View of usual commuting hours and increased weekend traffic. 28 Christchurch Road There will also be further use and subsequent noise because there will be the facility to hold larger functions and overnight/weekend events
Officers Report:
This application comes to committee at the request of Cllr Mrs Comfort. The Officer recommendation is for refusal and no objection has been raised by the Town Council. Three letters of objection have been received.
The proposal The proposal is for a 30 bedroom hotel housed in a predominately single storey building that is to be attached to the north elevation of the main clubhouse building. A two storey extension to the front of the clubhouse is also proposed, which will project from the existing reception area, and incorporate a single storey canopy projecting into the car park.
The hotel building will form an enclosed courtyard with bedrooms around it. The hotel reception will be housed on the ground floor of the new two storey extension and a new lounge and bar will be above it, which will be linked to the first floor restaurant (Bentleys Restaurant).
A spa will be provided beneath the courtyard and part of the bedroom areas. This will house a plant room, changing rooms, showers, saunas and treatment rooms.
Existing buildings The existing clubhouse has two floors with two restaurants, two kitchens and a spikes bar. The first floor restaurant is open to the public. Other rooms include a committee room and office; stores; pro-shop; changing rooms/toilets and reception area.
Planning history 1987 (application 87/0481) - Planning permission was granted for the conversion of redundant farm buildings to 13 holiday cottages. These buildings existed in a similar position to the site for the proposed hotel building, but the permission was never implemented.
25 1988 (application 88/1160) - Planning permission for a golf course was granted, but it appears that this particular permission was never implemented.
1990 (application 90/0098) - Approval was granted for a golf course, clubhouse and 7 two bedroom holiday units. In 1991 an amendment to this consent was approved to alter it to 10 one 1 bedroom holiday units within the envelope of the permitted buildings.
This permission is considered to be extant and remains valid, as the clubhouse has been built and therefore the remaining development shown on the approved plans may be constructed at any time.
1993 (application 93/0033) – A single storey extension to the bar area was permitted, and subsequently implemented.
1994 (application 94/0958) – An extension to the spikes bar toilet accommodation was approved, together with cellar below. This was implemented and can be seen at the rear of the clubhouse.
It is important to note that the national Green Belt policy changed in 1995 with the advice in PPG2. The applications prior to this date were determined on the basis of advice provided in 1955. This is relevant in understanding the early site history.
1995 (application 95/1000) - Permission was granted for expanded reception and administrative facilities to serve the clubhouse, which entailed a single storey extension into the courtyard which added 46 square metres to the gross floor area of the buildings. The 10 holiday cottages as approved in 1990 were also shown on the approved plans. This permission was never implemented and has since lapsed.
Numerous applications have been refused on the site for extensions, with the two most recent being in 2006 and earlier in 2008.
Evolution of the club house building The club house on the site was built under planning permission 90/0098. Two single storey extensions were built subsequently, and they now form a single extension to the rear of the clubhouse.
The original clubhouse building had a Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 1100 square metres, and the extant holiday units 733 square metres. The extension at the rear added a further 80.5 square metres.
The current proposal will add approximately 370 square metres GFA to the extant permission. This is because the hotel building will extend 6.5m further to the rear (east) of the clubhouse; it will cover a greater area of the open courtyard that is surrounded by the holiday units, and it will extend the front of the reception area by 8m using a two storey extension.
When the extension that has been constructed at the rear of the clubhouse is included, this equates to a total increase in GFA of 450.5 square metres, which represents an increase in GFA of 24.5% over that of the original clubhouse and extant holiday units. This does not include the projecting canopy proposed at the front of the clubhouse.
This increase, in conjunction with the additional bulk that it will add to the clubhouse building is considered to be unacceptable as it will further impact on the openness of the green belt.
26 Policy background The golf course and clubhouse are wholly within the green belt, and it is considered that the proposed development represents inappropriate development for the purposes of the advice set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 2 – Green Belts (1995).
This is because the proposals do not represent essential facilities for outdoor recreation and result in loss of openness. This view is accepted by the applicant’s agents who state this in their letter dated 1st August 2008 accompanying the application.
Therefore to be acceptable in terms of green belt policy, it is for the applicant to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances to justify the inappropriate development, and that these clearly outweigh the harm to the openness of the green belt.
Very special circumstances argument The applicant’s agents have set out what they consider to be very special circumstances in their Design and Access Statement ref: JM/3076/0508 dated July 2008. These are;
1) The extant consent for the holiday cottages 2) The long term viability of an important recreational and leisure facility 3) The economic benefits arising from additional employment together with the retention of existing employment 4) The tourism benefits set against the recent loss of the Dormy Hotel in Ferndown 5) The economic benefits of convenient hotel accommodation to Bournemouth International Airport
Officers are of the view that these circumstances are not so very special as to outweigh the harm to the green belt through loss of openness. The reasons for this opinion are as follows:
1) As previously stated, the current proposal represents a net increase of 370 square metres GFA in comparison with the extant permission for the holiday cottages and existing clubhouse. The consistent planning history reflects adherence to Green Belt principles in considering the holiday accommodation.
This is excessive, and will give rise to loss of openness in addition to that already resulting from the existing clubhouse building and its extension that could be built under the extant permission. As a matter of principle it is unacceptable.
2) & 3) The application is supported by a Profit Impact Assessment dated July 2008. This argues that substantial investment has been made by the Club to improve the golf course and clubhouse facilities, and the Club fails to generate an acceptable economic return on this investment.
In order to achieve an acceptable economic return, the Club wishes to further extend and enhance their facilities by building the proposed 30 bed hotel and spa. This would allow the Club to maintain its market position, even if it would not provide some investors with an optimum return.
The Assessment concludes by stating that there is an over-riding economic need for the Club to be able to diversify, and it is essential that the Club’s overall investment is improved to become more economically viable and retain the business and the associated employment that it offers.
Officers recognise the importance of retaining employment and a business in the District. However the viability of the Club, together with the employment it offers is not considered to
27 be of such overriding importance as to justify the impact to the openness of the green belt that the increase in scale of the building will result in. This is because this argument could be repeated too often, and be used by failing businesses to justify inappropriate development in the green belt in many instances.
4 & 5) Officers acknowledge that the provision of a hotel to replace the Dormy Hotel in Ferndown and to provide a hotel to serve Bournemouth International Airport may be beneficial to provide accommodation for short stay visitors to the District. However, these are not considered to represent very special circumstances, as in terms of green belt policy, a new hotel would be best placed in the urban area outside the green belt. The existing Dormy Hotel site has yet to be redeveloped. Your officers are in negotiation with a potential developer of the site involving a range of uses. A proposal for a replacement hotel on the site (or part of it) is foreseeable.
In any event the applicant could choose to provide a small hotel based on the buildings benefiting from the extant consent. Your officers support this position.
Conclusion The application site started life as a golf course with clubhouse and associated holiday accommodation. Since then the clubhouse has been extended, but the holiday accommodation was never built. In green belt terms, the construction of new buildings is inappropriate unless it is to provide 'essential facilities' for outdoor sport and recreation. These should be genuinely required for uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. The original clubhouse provided these facilities but has since expanded beyond the 'essential' needs and requirements of the golf course. The proposed facilities now appear to relate primarily to the wider activities generated by the Clubhouse and not the golf course itself.
Officers consider that the clubhouse should not be extended further beyond the extant permission, as this will result in further loss of openness of the green belt. The previous planning history recognised the previous buildings on the site and dealt with proposals in a flexible and positive way. It is important, however, that the principles previously accepted by the Council are not lost. The history of permissions at the site has been consistent with the appropriate Green Belt national policy framework at any given time.
Officers and the applicant agree that the current proposal represents inappropriate development in the green belt. However it is clear that the ‘very special circumstances’ put forward are not so very special that they justify allowing the extensions, given the additional loss of openness that they will generate.
Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-
Reasons:-
1 The proposed development lies within the Green Belt as defined in the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000, and identified in the East Dorset Local Plan (2002). Within this area it is intended that no new development shall be permitted except that reasonably required in connection with agriculture or forestry or other appropriate uses including small buildings or structures which are essential for outdoor recreation. As the proposal is for none of these uses, it represents inappropriate development which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and contrary to the purposes of including the land within it. It is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that there are any circumstances that are so special so as to outweigh the Green Belt policies, the harm to the openness of the Green belt
28 and the reasons for including land within it. The proposal is therefore contrary to the advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 'Green Belts'.
Informatives:
1 Regard was had to the advice set out in PPG2 Green Belts (1995) in the determination of this application.
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 DES8
Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/08/0991/FUL
Proposal: Raise Roof to Create Accommodation in New Roofspace. Alterations to Rear Elevation to Include Demolition of Side Extension and Part of Garage
Site Address: 8 Freemans Lane, Colehill, Dorset, for Mr G Hardiman
Constraints Urban Area BIA 90m Birdstrike Windfarm
Site Notice expired: 2 October 2008 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 September 2008
Colehill Parish Council Out of keeping with area Comments:
Consultee Responses:
County Highways Development recommended amendments Liaison Officer
Neighbour Comments:
Mr G Barnett-Smith With reference to this application we have reviewed the 11 Dales Drive revised plans and note that the there appears to be no Wimborne reduction in the overall roof height and size from the original proposal. We therefore still object on the grounds of loss of privacy due to being overlooked and still feel that the proposal is completely overwhelming when compared to its immediate surrounding dwellings. In addition we feel that this will cause a significant loss of light to our property. Maurice & Julia Albin Object to overlooking windows 7 Dales Drive, Colehill Mr A Gee Object 15 Dales Drive Out of context Colehill Loss of privacy
29 Officers Report:
This application comes to committee as the Parish Council has raised an objection to the proposal, and the Officer recommendation is for approval.
The proposal is for an extension to the roof of this detached bungalow to raise its ridge by 1200mm to 6.9m, and provide cropped hip gables at the sides facing 6 and 10 Freemans Lane. A cat slide type roof will be at the rear covering a new single storey extension, which will have a smaller footprint than the existing rear single storey extensions.
Permission for a similar proposal was granted in 1991 (91/1109) which has since expired.
The new roof shape will incorporate two hipped roof dormer windows on the front elevation facing Freemans Lane, a single hipped roof dormer window on the rear elevation (serving a bathroom), 2 roof lights on the rear elevation (serving a shower room and stairwell), and a high level window at first floor on the side elevation facing No.6.
The plans show a detached garage at the rear next to the boundary with No.6. However this is not part of the application and could be undertaken as permitted development if it met the size limits of the new regulations concerning permitted development that came in October this year.
The proposal will result in a taller and bulkier dwelling, however the site is situated on what appears to be the highest part of Freemans Lane, and it could be reasonably expected that the ridge of any property on the site would be taller than those of its neighbours.
The submitted street scene elevation demonstrates that the proposal sits comfortably with its neighbours, as the bulk of the side elevation is reduced by its design incorporating a cropped hipped roof and hipped side element. This retains a good sized gap between the application dwelling and No.10.
The relationship between the site and No.6 is also acceptable, on account of the separation distances involved and the position of the application dwelling set forward of No.6.
There is not expected to be any significant overlooking of neighbouring properties, as the rear facing dormer window is to be obscure glazed and its opening restricted with the rear facing roof light serving the shower room to be high level.
Approval is therefore recommended.
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 extension hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
30 Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, the roof light proposed to serve the shower room in the south (rear) elevation shall be installed with its sill at or above 1700mm above floor level.
Reason: To preserve the privacy of occupants of the adjoining properties.
4 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the first floor window in the south (rear) elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass, details or a sample of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This window shall either be a fixed light or restricted opening. Should restricted opening be proposed, details of this shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the insertion of the window. Thereafter the window shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the use of the room that the window serves, and the window retained as approved in perpetuity. 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 privacy of the occupants of the adjoining properties.
Informatives:
1 The applicant is advised that for applications such as this, which involve works to the roof of the existing property where bats may be present, Natural England has advised that the development should not proceed unless and until it has been demonstrated that the works would not have an adverse impact on bats which are a protected species. In this regard, the applicant is advised to contact Natural England to arrange for the building on the site to be surveyed by a suitably qualified person. Further information may be found on the following website www.naturalengland.org.uk.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8
Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/08/1003/FUL
Proposal: Raise Roof to Form First Floor Bedroom Accommodation. Addition of Porch to Rear and Front Entrance Porch
Site Address: Bucklers Hard, 3 Rowlands Hill, Wimborne, for Korner Construction Ltd
Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Urban Area BIA 90m Birdstrike Windfarm
Site Notice expired: 21 September 2008
31 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 17 September 2008
Wimborne Minster Town No objection Council Comments:
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Tree Section No arboricultural objections.
Neighbour Comments:
B K Hobbs Object 23 Greenhays Rise Over development of site Wimborne Loss of privacy Out of character Mr & Mrs M J Desforges Object 3A Rowlands Hill Loss of privacy Wimborne Out of keeping with area Overdevelopment of site Joyce Curry Object 9 Minster View, Wimborne Out of keeping H A & W E Briggs-Mills Object 5 Minster View, Wimborne Noise
Officers Report:
The application is put to the Committee at the request of the Local Member.
Site Description The application site comprises a bungalow set on a plateau of land to the west of Rowlands Hill; the site is well screened by mature hedging and trees, accessed via a steep drive. The current bungalow has a ridge height of approximately 4.5m and is finished in brick under a tiled roof.
Planning History The original property was built in 1975 under application (3/75/1785). An application (3/08/0617/FUL) to ‘Raise roof to form first floor bedroom accommodation, addition of porch to rear and front entrance porch’ was submitted earlier this year and withdrawn on the advice of officers in order to allow changes to be made to the north-west elevation.
More recently an application (3/08/1137/FUL) to make changes to the entrance of the site has been submitted, this has yet to be validated.
Proposal The proposal seeks consent to raise the roof of the property to 7.5m to form bedrooms within the roofspace. A number of dormer windows will be added to the south-west and south-east elevations and new gables formed. A porch will be added to the rear and side elevation. The building will be finished in timber cladding, brick and render under a tiled roof and will incorporate timber windows.
The proposal is materially similar to that submitted earlier this year, apart from the fact that the proposed gable end on the north-west elevation of the building has been amended to a hipped roof.
32 Considerations The two key issues for consideration are the design of the proposal and the impact on the character of the area, and secondly the impact on the amenity of neighbours.
(i) Character of the area The area has a mixed character. To the west are situated the smaller suburban type bungalows on Minster View and Green Hays Rise, while to the east on Rowlands Hill are larger houses set within more expansive gardens. Immediate to the north of the application site is a large two storey property, no 3a Rowlands Hill. It is apparent that the application site has more affinity in terms of plot size and character to the larger properties to the east.
The neighbour at Packroad House (3a Rowlands Hill) has commented that when he developed a property in the northern proportion of the garden, now known as 3B Rowlands Hill, the Council insisted that this was single storey in order that it complemented the character of area and lessened the impact on neighbours. In response it is notable that this particular property was set within a much smaller site and would have had a greater impact on neighbours. Furthermore each application must be judged on its own merits and the development of a single storey development on one site does not necessarily set a precedent for the same on a site further down the road.
The key test is whether the proposal is appropriate for the site and maintains the character of the area. In the view of officers the design of the current proposal well considered leading to a well proportioned and articulated building that will not appear out of keeping with the character of the area. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Polices HODEV1 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.
(ii) Neighbour amenity The building has been designed to ensure that the inclusion of windows at first floor does not introduce overlooking of neighbouring properties. This has been achieved by placing the windows principally on the south-east and south-west elevations. Whilst the site is elevated the mature hedge and tree screening around the boundaries of the site combined with the distance to adjacent properties, ensures there is no overlooking – for example No.23 Green Hays Rise is situated some 28m away and Nos 5 and 7a Rowlands Hill some 35m.
On the north-east and north-west elevation five rooflights are proposed of which three are obscure glazed. These again ensure there is no overlooking of neighbouring properties. A condition is recommended to preclude any further additions or alterations to the windows at first floor level.
Turning to the massing of the building; the property sits within a large well screened plot and whilst the site is elevated this will not cause overshadowing of neighbouring properties. The property most affected by the application is No.5 Minster View (16m away), notably by the increase in the height of the roof. The changes made on this application to replace the gable end on the north-west elevation with a hipped roof have ensured that the impact of the proposed building has been substantially lessened. The wall of this gable will be screened by a mature hedge approximately 2m high while the hipped roof will run back into the site reducing the mass of the building. Whilst this roof will be seen by the occupants of No.5 Minster View, it is considered that there is no demonstrable harm to amenity by way of overmassing or overshadowing and a refusal on these grounds would be difficult to sustain.
A further letter of objection has been received from Packroad House (3a), commenting on the overbearing and over-dominating relationship on the property and garden. This property which currently has a view of the Minster, is situated some 22m to the north of the proposal
33 site. Whilst the loss of view is regrettable this is not a material planning consideration, and given the distances involved the proposal will not be overbearing or dominate the property or garden.
In summary the proposal in terms of amenity is acceptable and will not lead to overlooking, a loss of light or over massing of adjacent properties. The proposal fully meets Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.
Turning to other considerations, a bat survey has been undertaken which advises that there are no bats on site; however the standard planning condition regarding the protection of bats will be added. With regard trees and hedgerows, these will be unaffected by development.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration or door shall be installed at first floor level (such expression to include the roof) without express planning permission.
Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining property.
4 The existing natural tree screen hedgerows along the boundaries of the site shall be retained and reinforced where necessary in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any such reinforcement shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive following the first occupation of the adjacent building maintained for a period of five years during which time any plants that are found to be dead or dying shall be replaced.
Reason: To maintain and enhance the appearance of the locality.
Informatives:
1 The applicant is advised that for applications such as this, which involve works to the roof of the existing property where bats may be present, Natural England has advised that the development should not proceed unless and until it has been demonstrated that the works would not have an adverse impact on bats which are a protected species. In this regard, the applicant is advised to contact Natural England to arrange for the building on the site to be surveyed by a suitably qualified person (a free service
34 for householders). Further information may be found on the following website www.naturalengland.org.uk.
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: HODEV1 DES8
Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/08/1031/FUL
Proposal: Two Storey Extension to Side and Rear (Demolish Existing Garage) New Bay Window at Front
Site Address: 69 High Street, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne, for Mr Dance
Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone
Site Notice expired: 24 October 2008 Advert expired: 17 October 2008 Nbr-Nfn expired: 9 October 2008
Sturminster Marshall Parish Objection: Council Comments: Too imposing on street scene
Consultee Responses:
County Highways Development The proposal appears to result in a loss of parking spaces. Liaison Officer The submitted plan should clearly illustrate all manoeuvring and parking facilities available as a result of the proposal.
Neighbour Comments:
Stephen Pugh 67 High street, No objections, anything is an improvement to what is there Sturminster Marshall now.
Officers Report:
This application comes to Committee as the Parish Council object and the Officer recommendation is for approval. An e-mail of support has also been received.
The proposal is for a two storey gable roofed extension to the side (north) and rear (west) of this detached house. It also proposes a two storey gable ended bay window on the front elevation facing High Street; an increase in the ridge height of the main roof by 100mm and a gabled dormer window on the rear elevation. It is also proposed to render the walls and match the additional roof tiles needed to the existing roof tiles.
Planning permission was granted for a similar sized extension in 2007 (07/1216), but omitted the bay window.
35 The current dwelling has an asymmetrical roof, with flat roofed dormer windows at the rear and a flat roofed single storey extension at the side. It is built of Beacon Hill brick, with tile hanging at first floor and sits between two older properties. The existing property is considered to be of no architectural merit and detracts from the appearance of this part of the street scene.
The dwelling at 67 High Street immediately to the south of the application site has a tiled roof and is rendered. The dwelling at No.71 has a slate roof with red brick walls. The proposal will use external materials that respect its context, and this will be an improvement on the current dwelling.
The side extension will be 1m from the north boundary with No.71 and 6.5m from the south elevation of this property. Two windows are proposed on this elevation, one to serve a bedroom and one to serve a bathroom.
The bedroom window is to be an oriel window with obscure glazing on its north west elevation and clear glazing on its north east elevation. The bathroom window will be obscure glazed. In this respect no significant overlooking of No.71 is likely.
There are already first floor windows at the rear of the dwelling and the proposed first floor windows should not result in any greater overlooking than currently exists.
There are no windows proposed in the first floor of the side (south) elevation facing No.67.
Amended plans to show two on-site parking spaces have been requested and these are expected prior to the meeting.
The proposal is considered to comply with Policy DES8 of the local plan and approval is recommended.
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 tiles to be used for the roof covering of the works hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing.
3 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the 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.
36 4 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the north west facing window in the first floor oriel window on the side (north) elevation shall be fixed closed and glazed with obscure glass. The obscure glazing shall be installed once a sample of the obscure glazing to be used has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter the glazing shall not be altered without the consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve the privacy of the occupants of 71 High Street.
5 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the bathroom window in the first floor of the side (north) elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass, and be restricted in its opening. Prior to installation of the window, details of the obscure glazing and amount of restriction of opening shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the amount of opening restriction and obscure glazing shall not be altered without the consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve the privacy of the occupants of 71 High Street.
Informatives:
1 The applicant is advised that for applications such as this, which involve works to the roof of the existing property where bats may be present, Natural England has advised that the development should not proceed unless and until it has been demonstrated that the works would not have an adverse impact on bats which are a protected species. In this regard, the applicant is advised to contact Natural England to arrange for the building on the site to be surveyed by a suitably qualified person. Further information may be found on the following website www.naturalengland.org.uk.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8 TRAN10
Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/08/1039/COU
Proposal: Change of Use of Land to Residential Curtilage
Site Address: 133 Coppice Avenue, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mrs Susan Gunn
Constraints EN Cons 400m Urban Area BIA 15m Birdstrike Windfarm
Site Notice expired: 2 October 2008 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 September 2008
Ferndown Town Council Object to the loss of the buffer between Wimborne Road Comments: and the residential areas.
Consultee Responses:
37 EDDC Tree Section Although there are several trees located on the land that the applicant wishes to acquire, they are all either of poor form or health and therefore do not merit becoming the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Should planning permission be granted and these trees removed it would not be at the detriment to the visual amenities of the locality. I therefore have no arboricultural objections.
County Highways No Objection Development Liaison Officer
Neighbour Comments:
Officers Report:
This application comes to committee as the Town Council has objected and the Officer recommendation is for approval.
The proposal is for the change of use of a vacant piece of land to residential curtilage to be used in association with 133 Coppice Avenue.
The site has a bund on its boundary with Wimborne Road East (WRE) which sits next to a bus stop. This bund has trees and bushes growing on it and next to it.
Part of the application site is identified as open space in the local plan, with the remainder a grass area maintained by the Council. The open space lies between WRE and the south boundary of No.133, and the grass area between WRE and the end of the turning head of Coppice Avenue outside No.133.
The application has arisen in an attempt to cease/reduce instances of anti-social behaviour that has been occurring in the area around the bus stop that exists next to the application site.
A 1m tall chain link fence has been erected on the boundaries of the application site that front onto the grassed area next to this part of Coppice Avenue. The applicants have stated that this has reduced occurrences of anti-social behaviour.
Trees and bushes currently occupy the area shown as open space in the local plan, and a small strip of grass has been enclosed by the fence. A sizeable area of grass will remain and the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its visual impact.
Policy NCON5 of the local plan is applicable to the proposal and seeks to prevent development having an adverse impact on earthworks and open spaces (amongst other features). The proposal is considered to comply with this policy as it is for the change of use only and no physical works are proposed. A condition is suggested to prevent the erection/siting of outbuildings without planning permission which will give the Council control over the site.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
38 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 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), there shall be no outbuildings built or placed, or further fences or other means of enclosure erected, on the area shown as a bund (which is hatched in green on the approved plans) without obtaining planning permission beforehand.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the street scene when the site is viewed from Wimborne Road East.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8 NCON5
Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/08/1080/FUL
Proposal: Erect Car Port
Site Address: 33 Dudsbury Road, West Parley, Dorset, for Mr P Haigh
Constraints Airport Safeguarding (All) EN Cons 5km Urban Area Special Character Area Birdstrike Windfarm
Site Notice expired: 9 October 2008 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 6 October 2008
West Parley Parish Council Object - siting of car port at front of plot restricts visibility of Comments: vehicles egressing onto Dudsbury Rd from No 35 causing a highway safety issue. Also object to structure being placed in front of property, which is out of character in street.
Consultee Responses:
County Highways No objection subject to the following conditions: Development Liaison Officer CB1 - Access, Turning, Garaging & Parking to be provided The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning space, garaging and parking shown on the approved plan has been constructed and these shall be maintained and be kept available for that purpose at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety
EDDC Tree Section There is a line of 10 protected Scots Pines growing on
39 adjacent land directly south of the front garden of the site. The trees all healthy specimens collectively make a good contribution to the visual amenities of the locale. The young Lawson Cypress on the front boundary is not subject to a TPO and is not worthy of one. No objection subject to condition.
Neighbour Comments:
Mr J & Mrs A Hill Object 31 Dudsbury Road Out of character West Parley Over-development of site
Officers Report:
Site Description The property comprises a chalet bungalow set within a large garden with mature boundary hedges. The site is partially screened by way of a mature frontage hedge and trees on the boundary to the south. These trees are subject to a TPO.
Planning History A previous planning application (3/08/0815/FUL) for a double garage with attached log store was refused earlier this year on the basis that the structure would adversely affect the Special Character Area.
Proposal It is proposed to provide a new double car port to the front of the property. This will be sited alongside the hedge and will be built in timber with clay tiled roof; the structure will be open on all sides. The proposed car port is approximately 3.6m high.
Planning Considerations The revised scheme has been reduced in size and is open on all sides allowing views through the structure. Whilst situated to the front of the property the lightweight form of the car port will not appear out of keeping in the street scene. Furthermore the site is well screened on the front and southern boundary by a mature hedge. On this basis the proposal will not appear obtrusive or inappropriate in the Special Character Area. With regard the amenity of neighbours the garage will not compromise the amenity of neighbour by way of massing of overshadowing.
The views of the Highways Authority have been sought, who advise that the proposal is acceptable in highway safety terms. The Council’s Tree Officer advises that subject to planning conditions to ensure trees are protected during construction, no objection raised.
Overall the application will not compromise the character or appearance of the area and meets Policies BUCON6 and DES8 of the EDLP.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
40 Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.
3 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning space and parking shown on the approved plan has been constructed and these shall be maintained and be kept available for that purpose at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
4 No alterations (including the enclosing of the structure on any side) shall be made to the structure hereby approved, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The enclosing of the car port would adversely affect the appearance of the Special Character Area.
5 The protection of the preserved trees shall be erected in accordance with BS5837:2005 Trees in Relation To Construction fig.2. It shall be positioned as shown on the Tree Protection Plan, dated the 2nd September 2008. This is to be erected before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The protection shall be retained until the development is completed 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..
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8 BUCON6
Item Number: 11. Ref: 3/08/1089/FUL
Proposal: Single storey side extension
Site Address: 58 Heatherdown Road, West Moors, Ferndown, for Mr D Doe
Constraints Urban Area BIA 45m Birdstrike Windfarm
Site Notice expired: 9 October 2008 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 6 October 2008
West Moors Parish Council No objection.
41 Comments:
Consultee Responses:
Neighbour Comments:
Mr D R Stafford Object 29 Uplands Road, West Moors Building line breached L Budd Object 32 Uplands Road, West Moors Out of keeping T J & Mrs D H Press Object 24 Uplands Road, West Moors Out of keeping Loss of character S P Stebbing Object 35 Uplands Road, West Moors Out of keeping and over dominant E Bates Object 26 Uplands Road, West Moors Loss of privacy, overlooked Over development
Officers Report:
This application is included on the agenda for consideration by the Planning Committee because there are more than four letters of objection.
58 Heatherdown Road is a bungalow on the corner with Uplands Road. It is typical 1960s with a shallow pitch roof.
This proposal is to add a single storey extension comprising a kitchen and dining room on the side elevation facing Uplands Road. There is no increase in the height of the ridge of the roof of the property.
There is sufficient garden to enable the bungalow to be extended without it looking like an overdevelopment of the site.
The extension will protrude in front of No 35 Uplands Road but it is far enough away not to have any significant impact on the amenities of its occupiers by affecting their outlook. The distance from the extension to the nearest part of No 35 is 14 metres and in the intervening space are the garages and driveways of both properties.
The extension will be visible in the street scene but the impact will not be unacceptable. It does alter a notional building line but as it is on a corner it is not readily perceived. The harm to the character of the area is not sufficiently significant to warrant a recommendation that planning permission be refused. In this respect the representation by local residents have been noted, but your officers have come to a different conclusion.
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.
42 Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the development, hereby permitted, shall be identical in every respect to those of the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing.
Informatives:
1 The applicant is advised that for applications such as this, which involve works to the roof of the existing property where bats may be present, Natural England has advised that the development should not proceed unless and until it has been demonstrated that the works would not have an adverse impact on bats which are a protected species. In this regard, the applicant is advised to contact Natural England to arrange for the building on the site to be surveyed by a suitably qualified person (a free service for householders). Further information may be found on the following website www.naturalengland.org.uk.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8
Item Number: 12. Ref: 3/08/1100/FUL
Proposal: Revised vehicle circulation and car parking layout (variation of 3/05/0754/FUL) -(as amended by plans rec'd 08.10.2008)
Site Address: 112 Station Road, West Moors, Ferndown, for Roxan Construction LTD
Constraints BIA 45m Special Character Area Birdstrike Windfarm Urban Area
Site Notice expired: 18 October 2008 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 14 October 2008
West Moors Parish Council No Objection Comments:
Consultee Responses:
County Highways Development No objection Liaison Officer CB1 CC6 CD5
EDDC Tree Section No objections.
43 Neighbour Comments:
Officers Report:
This application has been included on the agenda because it is associated with the retrospective application for the retention of the bin stores and storage buildings (3/08/0659) elsewhere on this agenda. The car parking layout has been changed partly as a consequence of the siting of these buildings.
The erection of this block of 12 flats was approved under reference 3/05/0754 and the development has now been completed but with only 12 parking spaces so far having been provided. The submitted plans indicate 17 spaces which is the same as originally intended to be provided but in a different layout
The principal variation of the layout of the parking spaces is on the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the site of a further block of 12 flats (3/07/1321) where work has not yet started. There are no adverse impacts arising from these amendments. It is important, however, that all these spaces are provided in the interests of highway safety and for the benefit of future residents of the flats.
Amended plans have been submitted to take account of the requirements of the local highway authority.
There are no arboricultural objections.
There is, therefore, a favourable recommendation.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The access, turning space and parking shown on the approved plan shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans, be subsequently maintained and kept available for that purpose at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8 BUCON6
44 Item Number: 13. Ref: 3/08/1101/FUL
Proposal: Two Storey Rear Extension and Rear Conservatory
Site Address: Orchard House, Pentridge, Salisbury, for Mr R Savage
Constraints Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Conservation Area Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone
Site Notice expired: 24 October 2008 Advert expired: 14 November 2008 Nbr-Nfn expired: 16 October 2008
Sixpenny Handley Parish Objection Council Comments: There are very strong views both for and against by members of this Parish Council. The application contravenes policy conditions BUCON1 and DES8.
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Design And No objection Conservation
Neighbour Comments:
Ms Margaret Owen Object Strangmoor Conservation Area - AOB Pentridge Loss of privacy - over development of site Dr J Gillespie Smith Object Chestnut Cottage Extension inappropriate in Conservation Area Pentridge Out of keeping Overdevelopment Simon Ellingham Having seen a copy of the plans for the extension and Quail Cottage conservatory. I consider that they are excessive in size in Pentridge relation to other properties in the village, that they will significantly reduce the views of the Church and Churchyard from my property and that they will also mar the views from and atmosphere of the Church and its surrounds. Jonathan Gaisman Object 'Resident Of Woodyates', Mrs T Gaisman Object Cobley House, Woodyates Area of outstanding natural beauty Out of keeping Overlooking concerns John N David Object Little Thatch, Pentridge Affect aspect of houses near Church Marilyn Ashmead Craig and Unfortunately although the proposed extension is to the Chris Craig rear, it will still be visible from the church yard especially in Pentridge Down Lodge winter. The church yard is lovingly tended by a volunteer Pentridge working party and Pentridge Church is a listed building as are some of the gravestones. In addition to worshippers at the regular services, many people outside the local area go to see it. There has been a church on this site for over
45 700 years and after all that time it would be a great pity if the vistas from it were spoilt by a modern building. Eventually the narrow strip of land to the right of Orchard House will be incorporated into the church yard, exacerbating this potential problem. Visitors come to Pentridge for its period buildings and rustic charm and also to enjoy the wonderful walks and views in this AONB. The only public footpath in the village itself passes through the village green, surrounded by the listed Village Hall, Old School Cottage and Church. There are other listed cottages and houses nearby. Sadly the modern appearance of Orchard House is regarded as a jarring note in this idyllic scene by villagers and visitors alike, including previous owners the Longleys. Rather than preserving or enhancing the area, another extension to this house can only detract further from the local government plan. Ms Iris David Object Meadow Cottage, Pentridge Over-development, out of keeping Mr T King Object Pentridge House, Pentridge Out of Keeping Extension too big
Officers Report:
This application is before Committee because a number of letters of objection have been received and the parish council’s view is at variance with the Officer recommendation to approve.
The Site Orchard House is a detached two storey dwelling sited within Pentridge Conservation Area and Cranborne Chase AONB. The property is sited on raised land north of the spine road that runs through the village. It is adjacent to St Rumbold’s Church, a listed flint and stone building, and shares the access track that also leads to the converted brick Schoolhouse and Schoolroom, now Pentridge village hall.
Planning History The property was granted permission in the 1980s. A single storey southeast extension was added as permitted development and later granted a hipped roof (3/02/1559). This application follows a dismissed appeal for a two storey side extension which was found to harm the character and appearance of the conservation area due to the discordant appearance of the extended façade.
The Proposal The current application is for a two storey rear extension with an adjacent single storey conservatory. The material planning considerations are the impact of the development upon the conservation area, the AONB and neighbouring properties.
Impact on the Conservation Area Orchard House was permitted prior to the designation of the conservation area and its design is not judged to accord with current policies; it has a substantial width and a suburban style which is emphasised by its prominent siting above the driveway. However, by re-siting the extension to the rear the proposal avoids the significant harm which previously resulted in
46 refusal. The proposed development to the rear can be accommodated on the site without increasing the impact of the dwelling significantly on the area.
The gable end extension is 4m deep and 4.5m wide with a ridge height of 6m so that it will appear subordinate to the original dwelling. The increased depth of the property will be evident from the highway when viewed across the church ground but the site is predominantly screened by boundary hedging and set behind the existing dwelling it will have a very limited impact. Although it will not necessarily enhance the conservation area the development would not represent harm and the character of Pentridge would be preserved.
Impact on the AONB The proposed expansion would increase the bulk of development on the site but given the scale of the development and the established hedge screening the rear curtilage the development would not harm the wider AONB.
Impact on neighbouring properties To the south of Orchard House are two cottages, Quail Cottage and Chestnut Cottage. The latter is a small, timber famed, listed building which is forward of Orchard House and will not be affected by the proposal. The first floor rear windows of Quail Cottage overlook the development site and an objection has been received in respect of the visual impact but there is a 20m separation between the properties and some screening is offered by vegetation. No first floor windows are proposed in the southern elevation so the residential amenity of Quail Cottage is protected.
The northwest elevation faces the church and a number of objections have been received which relate to the impact of the development upon the privacy and seclusion of the church graveyard. The existing graves are currently screened by a number of trees and the land immediately adjacent to the site, which is also intended to be incorporated into the burial ground, is screened by a beech hedge. The first floor dormer window proposed in the northwest elevation remains 7m from the boundary and will not result in harmful overlooking. The potential for dominance referred to in objection letters in avoided by the lower ridge line of the extension.
Conclusion The site notice and neighbour letters in respect of this application have informed a widespread response, however an extended consultation period has been necessary due to an oversight in respect of the press advertisement which expires on the 14 November 2008.
The proposal represents a proportionate extension which is compatible with neighbouring buildings and will not harm the character of the Conservation Area or the AONB in accordance with policy DES8 and national Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. It is therefore recommended for approval.
Subject to no additional material matters being raised which have not been subject to consideration by this Committee it is requested that the Head of Planning and Building Control be delegated to release the certificate at the end of the period specified in the press advertisement
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
47 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 development is in keeping with the original dwelling and to limit its impact on the conservation area in accordance with the provisions of policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.
Informatives:
1 In addition to the policies listed below, in reaching this decision the Council has had regard to national planning policy, namely Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable development in rural areas.
2 The applicant is advised that bats are protected in the UK by Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc). Regulations 1994, and they are also protected by European and International Law. Work should proceed with caution and if any bats are found, all work should cease, the area in which the bats have been found should be made secure and advice sought from Natural England.
3 The applicant is advised that the plans submitted are not a true representation of the existing single storey extension.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8
Item Number: 14. Ref: 3/08/1104/FUL
Proposal: Erect dwelling with integral garage
Site Address: Land To The Rear Of, 112 Station Road, West Moors, for Roxan Construction LTD
Constraints Green Belt LP Groundwater Protection Zone Urban Area Special Character Area BIA 45m Windfarm Birdstrike
Site Notice expired: 18 October 2008 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 13 October 2008
48 West Moors Parish Council Objection on the following grounds Comments: Contravention of several criteria on page 39 of the Special Character Area SPG. Does this development constitute backland development.
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Tree Section No objections subject to conditions
County Highways No objection subject to conditions Development Liaison Officer
Neighbour Comments:
Colin Williams The proposal does not give any details of the form that the 4 Glenwood Road 'dwelling with integral garage' will take. I am unable to West Moors make an informed judgement without knowing what kind of dwelling is under discussion. It is impractical for me to visit the Council Offices to view the plans.
Officers Report:
The views expressed by the Parish Council are contrary to the recommendation thereby necessitating inclusion of this application on the agenda.
Planning permission was refused to erect a chalet style dwelling (3/08/0379) on 19 May 2008 on grounds of overlooking from the new flats, adverse impact on adjacent protected trees and detriment to the appearance of this part of the Area of Special Character.
The site lies to the rear of the flats which have been erected at 112 Station Road. This application continues to propose a chalet style dwelling with one en-suite bedroom in the roof. The principal differences are that the rear elevation is staggered so that it lies outside the root protection area of the adjacent tree as recommended by the applicant's arboriculturalist and there is one less window in bedroom 3 which faces the flats. The Design and Access Statement which accompanies the current application addresses the previous reasons for refusal and amplifies the lack of harm which arises from the revised scheme. In particular photographs are provided which are taken from the windows of the flats to demonstrate that there would be no harm to the amenities of the occupiers of the new dwelling.
As there are now no direct views into any of the windows of the dwelling and there will be no overlooking of the rear garden its relationship to the flats is acceptable. A less satisfactory juxtaposition was allowed on appeal by an Inspector at 536 Wimborne Road East, Ferndown.
There is no arboricultural objection. A tree protection condition is recommended in order to ensure that trees of amenity value are not adversely affected during erection of the property.
The issue of the impact on the Area of Special Character has been re-assessed taking into account the fact that the trees on the site which are of amenity value are not threatened. Their loss would have threatened the qualities of this attractive area. As this issue has now been resolved and taking into account the fact that the dwelling itself would not be visible from any public vantage point it is considered that there is insufficient conflict with policy BUCON6 to warrant a recommendation that this application be rejected.
49 The site lies within 5 kms. of protected heathland and in accordance with the requirements of the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009 a unilateral undertaking will be submitted to address this issue in the context of this application. If it is not received before the meeting the application will have to be refused.
There is a recommendation that planning permission be granted.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no extensions to the property shall be erected without express planning permission first being obtained.
Reason: To ensure that no work is undertaken which might adversely affect the roots of adjacent protected trees, the loss of which would be detrimental to the amenities of the area.
4 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development hereby permitted, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Council's Tree Officer and the Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees on the site in accordance with the TP Marsh Arboricultural Method Statement dated September 2008. The protection of the trees on and adjacent to the site shall be carried out in accordance with the TP Marsh Arboricultural Method Statement dated September 2008. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown on drawing no: TM-312.11, dated September 2008, before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto site for the purposes of the development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the local planning authority.
Reason : To protect trees of amenity value which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
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 9 "Biodiversity and Geological Conservation".
50 2 A unilateral undertaking has been submitted to address the requirements of the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009.
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: NCON4 DES8 BUCON6
6. Appendices 6.1 None.
7. Background Papers 7.1 Planning application and history files relating to each application.
51