Everyone 7 128 727 rep _agd _ID Dra ft 3 Ch ief E xecutives 3 0 5, 7, 11 rep_exe_IDsYes No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes 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 NoPE1, PL1, PL3 15/07/03 09:30:22 Chief E xe cutive Old 52 1
East Dorset District Council
Planning, Licensing and Enforcement Committee Agenda Item No 6 15th July, 2003 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Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any Contributors: Chief Executive Contact Officer: Michael Hirsh, Assistant District Planning Officer Financial Implications: None Council Priorities: PE1 PL1 PL3 Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the District Planning Officer's recommendations.
1. Applicable Specialist Service Area(s) 1.1 Planning and Economic Development
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.
Ref. No. App. No. Application Address Page No. 1 3/03/0595 1 Culverhayes Close Pamphill 2 2 3/03/0612 21 High Street Sixpenny Handley 3 3 3/03/0646 Kims Cottage Dean Woodcutts 4 4 3/03/0649 34 Highland Road Colehill 6 5 3/03/0657 Fryers Arms Woolslope Road West Moors 8 6 3/03/0668 2 Freemans Lane Colehill 10 7 3/03/0678 143 Uplands Road West Moors 11 8 3/03/0679 Mast Matchams Leisure Park Hurn Road Matchams 12 9 3/03/0688 40 Blythe Road Corfe Mullen 15 10 3/03/0712 71 Phellips Road Corfe Mullen 17 11 3/03/0730 63 Dudsbury Road West Parley 18 12 3/03/0738 Bridge House Gussage St Michael 19 13 3/03/0750 5 Gainsborough Road Ashley Heath 21 14 3/03/0800 13 Edmondsham Road Verwood 22 15 3/03/0811 7 Woodlinken Way Verwood 24
1 1. 3/03/0595 Access Door From First Floor Bedroom/ Study To A 12 May 2003 Proposed Balcony. 1 Culverhayes Close Pamphill for Mr And Mrs P Smith
TPO
Site Notice expired: 5 June 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 4 June 2003
Parish Council comments: Not satisfied with wooden screens. Obscure glass would look better. Balcony still overlooks other properties.
Note: This is an application for the construction of a balcony to the rear of this semi-detached property.
This application comes to Committee on account of the comments of the Parish Council.
The proposed balcony occupies a flat roof area above a rear extension constructed as permitted development. Works to create a balcony area on the flat roof including the replacement of a rear window with a door and the surfacing of the flat roof were carried out without further planning consent. Subsequently, the Applicant submitted an application for a balcony enclosed with railings (Application No. 3/02/1413). This application was refused under delegated powers in December 2002.
The current application differs from the previous refusal by incorporating timber screens approximately 2m high to both sides, returning to the rear and then decreasing in height to approximately 1.2m in the centre of the rear elevation.
One letter has been received from an adjoining property. This objects to the possibility of overlooking from the balcony to a patio area at the rear of their property, reducing the enjoyment of the garden. Concern is also expressed in the letter that approval may lead to additional proposals for balconies.
The proposals are not visible in the street scene.
The privacy screen proposed in the current application substantially reduces the potential for overlooking from the balcony and it is considered that the view from the balcony is potentially more limited than from the original bedroom window at the rear of the property. It is also necessary to consider possible noise and disturbance from use of the proposed balcony, however, it is considered that it would be difficult to show that this would be substantially different to the use of the existing garden area.
On balance the proposals are recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
2 1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 The balcony hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the screens shown on the approved plans have been completed in all respects. Such screens shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity.
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 G16R
------
2. 3/03/0612 New Entrance Porch 21 High Street Sixpenny Handley 14 May 2003 for Mr & Mrs D Adams
AONB
Site Notice expired: 11 June 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 10 June 2003
Parish Council comments: Object. The Parish Council support the application for a porch only. They consider the inclusion of a WC makes the extension too large, brings it too close to the highway, spoiling the presentation and frontage line of these cottages. Ideally the Council would prefer the extension turned 90 degrees, and the roof sloped to match the main roof.
Note: The site is located within the AONB. The application, to erect an entrance porch on the front elevation to No. 21 High Street would normally be delegable. The proposal comes to Committee with an objection from the Parish Council and at their request.
The porch design has been amended following discussions with Officers and its footprint reduced in size by the deletion of the W.C.
The Parish Council have been reconsulted on the amendments. Should the Parish, as the only objector, withdraw their objection, the application will be dealt with under the delegated procedure prior to the Committee meeting.
The application is otherwise recommended for approval subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R ------3
3. 3/03/0646 Conversion Of Existing Integral Double Garage To 19 May 2003 Living Accommodation Construction Of Detached Replacement Double Garage. Kims Cottage Dean Woodcutts for Mr And Mrs James
AONB
Site Notice expired: 12 June 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 11 June 2003
Parish Council comments: Objection on planning grounds stated below.
The Parish Council stand by their previously stated recommendation that there should be no further development on this site, and this application Overdevelopment. However, if the District Council is minded to approve this application, the Parish Council would like them to consider the following. In its current location the garage is too close to the highway, with the front opening doors reducing the limited space available even further. There is insufficient space to allow the site to be accessed and left in forward gear. The Council feels the present plan does not give sufficient thought to safety. The Council would therefore recommend that the garage be partially set back into the agricultural land behind it. This would enable sufficient space to be created in front of the garage to meet any safety requirements.
The Parish Council would also like to see a drain to take any run off from the hard standing in front of the garage to a soak away, taking it away from the road which already collects too much water.
Note: The site is located within the Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
A single storey and two storey extension (on rear) and an enlargement of the curtilage was granted in August 2002
The application proposes to convert the existing integral double garage at this address to living accommodation and to erect a new detached double garage within the side garden area.
The proposal comes to Committee as a result of the Parish Council objection and at their request.
The conversion of the integral garage to residential could be undertaken as permitted development. The principle of such conversion is not therefore at issue. The existing front elevation has two up and over garage doors punctuating the facade. Negotiations with your Officers with regard to the Council's Countryside Design Summary (Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) have sought to achieve a suitable elevation treatment and garage design, having regard to the 4 character of the existing cottage and its rural context.
The design is considered to improve the overall design of the cottage and follows the SPG advice.
Whilst the Parish Council's concerns regarding the scale of development are noted. The dwelling as extended retains an area of garden beside the garage. The applicants also own a field at the rear of the house which is open in character. The field beyond also contributes to the open setting of the cottage.
The Parish Council raise concerns regarding surface water drainage and request. The applicants have indicated soakaways as a means of surface water disposal. This aspect can also be conditioned as part of any approval.
Notwithstanding the highway safety issues raised by the Parish, Dorset County Council's Area Highway Development Liaison Officer raises no objection to the scheme on highway grounds.
The application is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 The maximum height of the new fence and low level shrubs within the visibility splays would be maximum 750mm not 900mm as indicated on the submitted plan.
3 Plans and particulars showing a scheme of surface water drains, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Such works shall be carried out concurrently with the rest of the development and in any event shall be finished before the building is occupied.
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 In the interests of highway safety.
3 In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal and to avoid flooding of the adjacent highway.
------
4. 3/03/0649 Erect 2 Storey Extension With Balcony And Extend 19 May 2003 Roof To Create A 2 Storey Dwelling And Detached Garage Amended Plans Received 19/06/03 34 Highland Road Colehill for Mr And Mrs A Dent
TPO CO26 5
Site Notice expired: 12 June 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 2 July 2003
Amended Plan comment 7 July 2003
Parish Council comments: Any comments on amended plans to be reported
Note: This application was deferred at the last meeting of the Planning , Licensing and Enforcement Committee to enable neighbour consultation to take place on amended plans in relation to the proposed garage.
The overall proposal relates to the erection of a two storey side extension on the eastern side of the property; a two storey extension and conservatory to the rear, and a double garage and gable extension on the western side of the property. New dormers are also to be provided in the front of the property with an additional dormer to the rear.
The existing dwelling on the site is a chalet style property with dormers facing the rear. The property is situated on a sloping site with the land falling away towards the rear of the property.
The site is within a Special Character area as defined on the Local Plan proposals map where development or redevelopment must respect those features or characteristics which are key to maintaining the environmental quality of the area.
This application relates to a resubmission of an earlier application which was refused in February this year. The refusal reasons related to overlooking of 36 Highland Road from the two storey rear extension and the impact of the double garage on the amenities of 1 Highland View Close.
The applicant has sought to address these issues in the current application.
The two storey extension has been cut back by one metre, so that it now projects 4.3 metres from the rear wall of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling and extension is angled towards No. 36 Highland Road so in addition to the reduction in depth of the extension, a bay window with blank sides and deep internal window ledge has been introduced to minimise oblique overlooking of that property.
The applicant has also produced a drawing to demonstrate the restricted line of vision towards the rear of the neighbouring property. In any event, wider views (although slightly more distant) already exist from the existing rear dormers in the property.
The revisions suggested would minimise any overlooking of the neighbouring and overcome your Officers earlier 6 concerns.
The detached garage and store building (with a footprint of 5.9m wide and 7m long) is to be located to the west of the existing dwelling. The land falls away from the Highland Road frontage so that the ridge height of the garage above natural ground level will vary front to back.
The original proposal (which was refused) had a ridge height above ground level which varied from 6.5 metres at the front and 7 metres at the rear. First floor gable windows and upper floor storage also existed above the garage. The garage plans submitted with the current application sought to reduce the height of the garage further, but on hearing that the proposal was again to be recommended for refusal on the impact of the garage on neighbouring development, amended plans were submitted.
The amended plans show that ridge height of the garage has now been reduced so that it is now (taking into account the sloping nature of the site) 4.3m high at the front and 4.7 towards the rear. The footprint of the garage remains as before but with no accommodation at first floor.
To date four letters of objection have been received. The neighbours at No. 36 Highland Road object to overlooking from the new bay window across their rear gardens; impact of the extension/loss of woodland view from their property, loss and disturbance to trees, effect on wildlife and possibly bats; impact from Highland Road (particularly if hedge lost); will be significantly larger property than others in the area; overlooking from conservatory; suggest a committee site visit.
Similar concerns have also been raised by the occupiers of 38 Highland Road whilst the occupier of No. 24 Wesley Road (to the rear) is worried about the potential of overlooking).
The neighbour at 1 Highfield Close again raises concerns over the size of the extension, conservatory and garage which would be out of keeping with the area. In their view issues of overlooking from the windows, balcony and conservatory have not been addressed which still overlook and would adversely affect their amenity. Whilst they have no objection in principle to a garage in this location they object to the height and depth of the garage originally proposed in the current application. Comments on the revised garage proposals are awaited.
The overlooking issues have already been referred to earlier in this report. It is not considered that the proposal will result in significant overlooking of neighbouring development given the angles and distances involved.
With regards to the overall size and design of the extensions, this did not form part of the earlier refusal. Whilst it is accepted that the site is located within an 7 Area of Special Character, it is likely that a replacement dwelling of this size would be acceptable in this location, subject of course to meeting acceptable planning criteria.
On the issue of the garage your Officers are now satisfied that the amended plans now overcome earlier concerns and are considered to be acceptable.
Approve
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 The proposed first floor bay window to the master bedroom shall be constructed with solid sides prior to the room being brought into use. No further windows or alterations to the windows to this room shall be carried out without prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment no windows or doors shall be erected at first floor level in the western elevation of the proposed side extension or at first floor level in the roof of the garage, without prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
4 L7C (Existing hedge to be protected and reinforced)
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 E14R
3 E14R
4 L7R
------
5. 3/03/0657 Convert Public House To Flats, Erect 2 Houses & 1 21 May 2003 Bungalow. (As Amended By Plans Rec 17 June 03) Fryers Arms Woolslope Road West Moors for Hall & Woodhouse
Urban area of West Moors
Site Notice expired: 18 June 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 7 July 2003
Town Council comments: In relation to the original plans: No objection. "Plot 3's double garage having its rear onto Pinehurst Road could be out of character - especially facing Avon Road.
8 Note: This application is brought to Committee for determination due to the considerable level of public interest in, and objection to, the application and as the main public objection is not supported in any reason for refusal.
The site lies within the urban area of West Moors, on the corner of Pinehurst Road and Woolslope Road. The site, of 0.27 ha is currently occupied by a Public House, the Fryers Arms, and its associated car park. The access to the car park is from Woolslope Road. There is an area of grass to the east of the public house, with a number of significant trees on the Pinehurst Road frontage. The rest of the site is formed by the car park.
The proposal is to convert the public house to 4 flats, to erect 2 detached four bedroom houses on the car park area on the south side of the site and to erect a three bedroom bungalow on the grassed area to the east of the public house. The public house is to be converted to 2 no. two bedroom flats on the ground floor, and 2 no. one bedroom flats on the first floor. Six parking spaces are proposed to the front of the building for these flats, with access off Woolslope Road. Two parking spaces are proposed for each of the houses, with separate driveways off Woolsope Road. In order to overcome concerns raised by the tree officer and provide more private amenity space for the proposed flats, the applicant was invited to withdraw the current application and resubmit a revised application with the bungalow at plot 3 deleted. However, the applicant has not done so, but has amended the plans to delete the driveway and garage at the front of the bungalow, with access from Pinehurst Road, pushed the bungalow further back into the site away from the trees and insert a driveway to the south of the Fryers Arms building, with two parking spaces at the rear of the site.
While this revised scheme would allow for protection of the trees at the front of the site, the proposal still fails to provide sufficient amenity space for the flats and highlights the cramped nature of the proposal. In addition, the revised access and parking for the bungalow, results in a long driveway, running the length of the rear garden of plot 1, adjacent to the flats, and culminate in two parking spaces at the rear of the site adjacent to the rear gardens of 23 Weavers Close and 28 Pinehurst Road. These properties are both bungalows and 23 Weavers Close is set at a lower level than the application site. It is considered that this revised access and parking arrangement to serve the bungalow at plot 3, would result in increased noise and disturbance to the adjacent bungalows. This revised scheme fails to address the concerns about which the applicant has previously been advised.
Over 20 letters of objection and a petition containing 33 signatures has been received objecting to the application. The majority of the objections relate to the closure of the public house. As the site is within the defined urban area 9 of West Moors the principle of residential development on this site is acceptable. There is no Local Plan policy for the retention of public houses in this area. There are other public houses in West Moors, together with other community facilities. While it is recognised that there is local concern about its closure, there is no planning reason to refuse the application on the basis of the closure of the public house.
Concern has also been raised about the likely traffic generation from this proposed development. However, the traffic generated by four flats, two houses and a bungalow is expected to be less than that generated by a Public House. The flow of traffic will be also be more staggered and will not be concentrated in the evenings, it will therefore be less disruptive to local residents.
RECOMMENDATION REFUSE - FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-
1 The proposed bungalow at plot 3 results in a cramped form of development, which fails to provide sufficient private amenity space for the proposed flats, to the detriment of the amenity of the occupiers of these flats. This would also result in pressure to erect a close boarded fence or high wall to enclose the small amount of amenity space which would be retained around the converted public house building, such enclosure would be to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area and contrary to Policy DES8 (Para 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.
2 The proposed driveway and parking spaces for the bungalow at plot 3 would result in increased noise and disturbance to the residents of the bungalows at 23 Weavers Close and 28 Pinehurst Road, and to the new residents of the house at plot 1 and flats 3 and 4, which would be to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of these dwellings, contrary to Policy DES8 (Para 6.300) Of the East Dorset Local Plan.
------
6. 3/03/0668 Retain New Fence Along North Western Boundary Of 28 May 2003 Property. 2 Freemans Lane Colehill for Mr And Mrs D J Roberts
Site Notice expired: 24 June 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 20 June 2003
Parish Council comments: Fence too high on highway frontage. Approval will create a precedent.
Note: This application is brought to the Committee because the recommendation is not in accordance with the views of the Parish Council.
2 Freemans Lane is a recently erected bungalow on the corner of Freemans Lane and Hayes Lane. The fence which has been erected in breach of planning control because it is adjacent 10 to the highway and exceeds 1m and because the planning permission for the new property (3/01/0025) required details of boundary treatment to be agreed and these showed the retention of the hedge.
Two objections have been received on the grounds of loss of amenity and detriment to the appearance of the area.
Whilst the removal of the hedge is unfortunate and not to be condoned the assessment which has to be undertaken must concentrate on the impact on the immediate surroundings. Obviously the retention of the hedge would be preferable. However, the area is not one which depends on hedges as part of its intrinsic character and there is a wall and fence in Jessop Road and a wall and fence on the other side of Freemans Lane. In the event of the refusal of planning permission and an appeal, an Inspector visiting the locality would be very unlikely to conclude that the fence is so out of character that it should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT
------
7. 3/03/0678 Extension And Conversion Of Existing Garage To Form 28 May 2003 Family Room, Study, Wc And Store. 143 Uplands Road West Moors for Mr And Mrs Nash
Site Notice expired 24 June 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 23 June 2003
Parish Council comments: Objection. Creates turning space against a neighbouring wall changing the status of both properties from detached (garage linked) into semi detached at ground floor level. Not desirable for neighbouring occupants.
Note: Number 143 Uplands Road is a two storey end of terrace with an attached single garage linking the dwelling to number 145.
The application comes to Committee as a result of the Parish Council objection and at their request.
The application indicates the erection of a single storey 5.5m long extension at the rear of the garage (2.65m in height). The dwelling retains off road parking for at least 3 cars on a driveway at the front.
Whilst the concerns of the Parish Council are noted, the proposal is not considered unreasonable in relation to either the impact upon the adjacent property or upon the street scene. The application is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
11 1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 G4C (Match materials to the existing building)
3 E14C (No further windows in the specified elevation)
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 G4R
3 E14R
------
8. 3/03/0679 25m Mast And 6 No. Antennas, 2 No. 300mm Microwave 28 May 2003 Dishes And A Cabin On A Concrete Base. Matchams Leisure Park Hurn Road Matchams for Vodafone Ltd
Site Notice expired: 26 June 2003
Nbr Nfn expired: None notified
Parish Council comments: objection, recommend refusal, as the Parish Council preference is for a slimline monopole lower than 25m. Additionally the 6 antennae and 2 microwave dishes are visual clutter.
Civil Aviation Authority: No objection
Dorset County Highways: No objection
Note: This application is for the erection of a 27.3m (overall height including antennae) telecommunications mast (monopole) with 6 x antennae, 2 x 300mm diameter dishes together with an equipment cabin on a concrete base. The operator is to be Vodafone.
Site Description: The site is to be located immediately to the north east of the existing monopole mast approved in 1998 under application 98/0512. This mast is 24.3m in height including the antennae.
There are trees surrounding the site that will provide a high degree of visual screening for the proposed mast.
Need for site: The site is needed to provide increased 2nd Generation (2G) coverage and additional 3rd Generation (3G) coverage to the A338 road from Ashley to Hurn and surrounding area, to include the Matchams Raceway, Ski Centre and shop, campsites and hotels.
The mast will also prevent the break in coverage for users along the A338 from the A31 in Bournemouth. There is currently a lack of coverage along the A338 and the areas of high subscriber concentration, and the areas of Kingston, Avon and Hurn. 12
Assessment: The relevant policies applicable to the proposal are TEDEV1 (Telecommunications) paragraph 6.260 and GB2 (Green Belt), paragraph 6.97.
Policy GB2 reads as follows;
Within the Green Belt inappropriate development, including uses of land, will not be permitted. Inappropriate development will include any development which does not maintain the openness of the land or which conflicts with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, and new buildings except for:
(a) agriculture or forestry;
(b) essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation or cemeteries and for other uses which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including the land within it;
(c) the limited extension or alteration of existing dwellings or their replacement where the new dwelling is not materially larger than that which it replaces; and
(d) infilling within the village infilling policy boundaries of washed over villages.
The application site is within part of a wooded area, and will not be immediately visible from the A338 or Hurn Road to the east.
The imposition of a suitable planning condition to paint the mast and antennae a colour to blend with the woodland will enable the visual impact to be further reduced.
As the site will be viewed against the woodland, it is considered that no loss of openness will result for the Green Belt. The woodland will effectively provide visual screening for the mast and its associated equipment compound, and no visual harm will result for the landscape.
Paragraph 65 of PPG8: Telecommunications identifies that a lack of a suitable alternative site is a special circumstances argument for a grant of permission in such cases. This consideration, in part, gave rise to the grant of permission for the adjacent mast.
Policy TEDEV1 reads as follows;
In determining whether approval of siting and appearance is required or considering applications for planning permission from licensed telecommunications operators the planning authority will need to be satisfied that: a) the siting and external appearance of apparatus, including any location or landscaping requirements, have been designed to minimise the impact of such apparatus on 13 amenity, while respecting operational efficiency;
b) antenna have, so far as is practicable, been sited so as to minimise their effect on the external appearance of the building on which they are installed;
c) applicants for large masts have shown evidence that they have explored the possibility of erecting antenna on an existing building, mast or other structure;
d) applicants have considered the need to include additional structural capacity to take account of the growing demands for network development, including that of other operators.
Criteria a) is relevant and the siting of the proposal is considered acceptable as it will minimise any visual impact on the landscape, being of slimline design and within a woodland area.
An International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Certificate has been provided in relation to the radio frequency emissions from the installation. Therefore, it is not necessary to question the impact on health further as stated in PPG 8 - Telecommunications.
It is considered that alternative sites have been assessed, and that the most suitable is the application site.
It is concluded that the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of its visual impact on the landscape and Green Belt, and in terms of relevant planning policy.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 Prior to the first use of the telecommunications mast hereby approved, the mast shall be painted/treated a colour to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the colour shall not be materially altered unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 In order to allow the mast to be effectively assimilated into the landscape.
------
9. 3/03/0688 Ground Floor Infill Extension And Raise Roof To 29 May 2003 Form Loft Conversion. Amended Plans Dated 26.6.03 40 Blythe Road Corfe Mullen for Mr And Mrs Coe
Site Notice expired: 30 June 2003
14 Nbr -Nfn expired: 23 June 2003
Parish Council comments: Objection. Would cause overlooking to neighbours, overmassing within plot, particularly overpowering due to its height and bulk - this would have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties, especially No 42.
Note: This application comes before Members as the recommendation differs from the comments of the Parish Council.
The proposal involves a first floor addition to this bungalow with a sloping roof, which rises 1.7 metres above the ridge of the existing bungalow. A rear extension is also proposed, infilling a corner at ground level and building above at first floor, and there is a proposed dormer window to a bathroom, facing towards the rear garden area of No 38.
The land drops by a metre from the application site to No 42 to the west and rises by 1 metre to the east towards No 38. No 38 is positioned completely forward of No 40, whereas No 42 is in line with No 40 and No 40 has its side wall positioned right on the boundary.
There will be no overlooking of either property to the sides, as mature hedges and walls exist at ground level, and at first floor level there are only rooflights proposed and one obscure glazed window in first floor dormer to the bathroom.
The main issue with this proposal is determining whether or not the amended roof design causes any harmful dominance and overpowering effect upon No 42.
There was a previous scheme refused at No 40, under delegated powers, which presented almost a full second storey with higher eaves and with cropped hipped roof. That scheme was refused because of its scale, height and bulk adjacent to No 42 as well as its design in the street scene. It clearly would have had a significant overbearing effect upon No 42.
This proposal now has a fully hipped roof at the sides with eaves height the same as the existing bungalow. It has a lesser impact upon No 42 than the previous scheme, but it is still on the boundary and one metre higher than the ground level of No 42. It will have an overbearing effect to a degree, but that is mainly due to the sloping nature of the land. The extra scale and bulk is not considered to amount to demonstrable harm to No 42, but a balanced view has to be taken.
No 42 had a first floor extension refused in January 1999, which had an asymmetrical design with a full two-storey element on the side facing No 40. Given its position projecting to the rear of No 40, it was considered that it 15 would have an overpowering impact upon No 40, despite it starting from a lower ground level. This property has subsequently had permission and is constructing front and rear single storey extensions instead.
Comparing the impact of the proposed extension to No 40 with the refused extension to No 42 there are two clear differences. Firstly the proposed design for No 42 is more aesthetically pleasing and is similar to others in the road. Secondly the proposal to No 40 does not project to the rear of No 42 and therefore would not affect its rear garden area. The proposal therefore has more merit than the refusal at No 42 but the issue of overbearing effect is a similarity in both schemes.
In design terms, the revised scheme is very similar to another property in the road and there are other roof conversions, which follow the same sort of parameters. The design is much improved from the previous scheme, On balance the overbearing impact on No 42 is not considered to amount to demonstrable harm.
There have been no neighbour objections to the proposal. The Parish Council object to the over-massing and overlooking as well as the overbearing effect. However, there is not considered to be too much mass, given the revised design, which shares the same eaves level as the existing bungalow. Overlooking will not occur given the removal of the dormer originally proposed facing No 42.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 G3C (Sample of materials - submission of details required)
3 G16C (Obscure glazing of window and no further windows)
4 E14C (No further windows in the specified elevation)
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 G3R
3 G16R
4 E14R
------
10. 3/03/0712 Two Storey Extension & Alterations To Form Extra 04 Jun 2003 Living Accommodation. 71 Phellips Road Corfe Mullen for Mr & Mrs Ashby
Site Notice expired: 1 July 2003
16 Nbr -Nfn expired: 27 June 2003
Parish Council comments: OBJECTION. Profile jars with street scene, design in very prominent and protruding. Not complementary with design of neighbouring properties.
Note: This application comes before Members because the recommendation differs from the comments of the Parish Council. There have been no neighbour objections.
The proposal is for a two-storey side extension to this end terrace, alongside a public walkway and green landscaped area.
At present the terrace of four consists of a 1970s design with flat roofed projecting garages at the front. The proposal seeks to put a part hipped roof over the existing flat roof garage and convert it into living accommodation. The appearance of this will be different from the other terraces but not harmful to the appearance of the terrace.
The side extension with forward projecting gable is also different, but could be argued to punctuate the end of the terrace. It appears acceptable in design terms and there is ample space to accommodate the extension without having a harmful effect upon neighbouring properties or the landscaped amenity area to the side and rear.
One bathroom window in the side elevation faces the blank side wall of No 73. Both new bedroom windows face front and rear.
Whilst the Parish consider the profile of the extension jars in the street scene, it is considered that the design causes no harm and actually adds interest to a rather bland terrace.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 G4C (Match materials to the existing building)
3 E14C (No further windows in the specified elevation)
4 G12C (Garage - not to be converted & domestic purposes only)
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 G4R
3 E14R
4 G12R
------17
11. 3/03/0730 Two Storey Side And Single Storey Rear Extensions 05 Jun 2003 Roof Conversion With Dormer Windows to front and Roof lights to rear (as amended by plans rec'd 25 June 03) 63 Dudsbury Road West Parley for Town And Country Planning Services Ltd
TPO
Site Notice expired: 7 July 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 2 July 2003
Parish Council comments: Object. We object to amended application on the grounds that the south elevation is a brick wall which faces directly on to No. 65 and this means for the whole length of the property at No. 65 and is considered to be over-bearing . We would also object to the overall bulk and size of the proposed extension. It is noted that the rear elevation 1st floor dormer overlooks directly into the rear of No. 5 Meadow Close. With all these points in mind we would strongly recommend a site visit to No. 65 Dudsbury Road and 5 Meadow Close.
Note: This application is on the agenda because the recommendation conflicts with the views of the Parish Council and due to the number of letters of objection.
An earlier application for alterations to this property was refused planning permission (3/03/0460) under delegated powers because of an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of 65 Dudsbury Road.
The current application seeks to address these concerns. The proposal involves an extension of the roof over a garage which is forward of the existing with to the rear a flat roofed extension to the bungalow.
Previously the pitched roof extended over the rear element of the additions. There are two dormer windows in the front elevation and roof lights in the rear elevation. A proposed dormer window in the rear elevation has been replaced by a roof light.
The bedroom roof light in the rear elevation could be installed without needing planning permission. 63 Dudsbury Road is at a higher level than 5 Meadow Close to the rear so there is an element of overlooking of that property's kitchen, conservatory and patio. However, taking into account the fact that there is a distance of 40m between the two rear elevations, that the roof light could be installed as permitted development and that it only serves a bedroom there is no justification for refusing the application.
There is an objection from the owners of No. 65 Dudsbury Road on the grounds of loss of light to their kitchen window on the side elevation. By proposing a flat roof (instead of the previous pitched roof) there will be no significantly 18 greater effect than that of the existing garage. There will be no further rearward extension of the garage. This application has therefore satisfactorily addressed the concerns which were originally expressed.
An objection from the owner of 76 Dudsbury Road to the two dormer windows on the front and to people buying dwellings and then wanting to extend them cannot be supported.
In summary the previous concerns have been resolved in this submission, notwithstanding continuing objections and thus a favourable recommendation is now possible.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 G4C (Match materials to the existing building)
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 G4R
------
12. 3/03/0738 Change Of Use Of Agricultural Land To Incorporate 06 Jun 2003 End Of Field Into Domestic Garden (Retrospective ). Bridge House Gussage St Michael for Simon Tong
AONB
Site Notice expired: 7 July 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 July 2003
Parish Council comments: Support - A small plot close to the river & containing two electricity poles making cultivation with modern machinery impossible, hence covered in weeds and nettles.
Much improved by being a garden which has been planted to encourage wildlife.
An unobtrusive plot bordered on three sides by domestic gardens.
A positive improvement to the environment.
Note: This is an application for the change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden in connection with Bridge House, Gussage St Michael. The application is retrospective.
This application comes to Committee on account of the comments of the Parish Council.
19 The land extends to approximately 0.14ha (1/3 acre) and lies to the rear of Bridge House. To the south and west the land is bounded by the Gussage stream, a tributary of the River Allen. Gardens run up to the stream on its south side. To the north is a field.
The land has been incorporated into the garden of the property with the rear boundary removed. The land has been landscaped over most of the site with formal planting beds and lawned areas.
Two letters has been received one from adjoining neighbours (at Waterside) supporting the proposals as they consider that the development has been an improvement to the land. A second letter has been received from the farmer who owned the land explaining that it was not possible to cultivate this land.
In support of their proposals, the Applicant states that previously the land could not be cultivated with machinery and therefore had become overgrown. The Applicant offers to make any approval personal to themselves and their occupation of Bridge House and that no structures be erected on the land.
The land concerned lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and outside the village infill envelope identified in the Local Plan. Local Plan policies CSIDE and LSCONI 1do not permit development which would harm the natural beauty of the landscape. Structure Plan Policy: ENVIRONMENT POLICY G also seeks to protect the Areas of AONB from major development. The change of use which has taken place has clearly altered the character of the land, introducing a domestic appearance including a sculptural feature to the otherwise agricultural landscape which characterises this part of the AONB outside of the village.
Whilst the difficulties in cultivating the site are noted, it is considered that this is a poor justification for allowing an otherwise unacceptable development as it could be repeated across the AONB with substantial detriment to the landscape. Gardenising wild corners to existing fields reduces natural habitat diversity. Furthermore, the offer to make a consent personal is not considered to be acceptable. Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 makes it clear that personal conditions should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances and should the property be sold on it would be difficult to justify why it was acceptable for the Applicant to use the land as garden but not any subsequent owner. The Committee are reminded that retrospective applications must be judged on the individual planning merits of the proposal. The Parish comment fails to reflect current policy and it also is an inaccurate reflection of the local geography as it ignores the important influence of the stream which provides a logical physical divide at this point.
The application is clearly contrary to policy and is 20 therefore recommended for refusal and Members agreement to pursue enforcement action to cease the domestic use of the land is also sought.
RECOMMENDATION REFUSE - FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-
1 The change of use of the land to domestic curtilage adversely affects the character of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, resulting in the encroachment of residential land into an otherwise open rural landscape. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy LSCONI (Paragraph 6.83) and CSIDE 1 (Paragraph 6.56) of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002). Furthermore the proposal represents an unfortunate precedent which if repeated elsewhere, would not only be at variance with these Local Plan policies but would also tend to undermine Environment Policy G of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan (Feb. 2001).
------
13. 3/03/0750 Construction Of A Chalet Bungalow. 5 Gainsborough 06 Jun 2003 Road Ashley Heath for Taxian Developments Ltd
TPO
Site Notice expired: 3 July 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 2 July 1002
Parish Council comments: Refuse - still appears an excessive development.
Note: An application to demolish the existing bungalow and erect two chalet style properties was refused in May 2002 with the subsequent appeal being dismissed on 22 October 2002 following an Informal Hearing.
The application addresses the previous concern about adverse impact on the character of the area and the amenities of occupiers of adjacent dwellings. However, as there is an objection from the Parish Council the application is on the agenda for consideration by the Committee.
This scheme involves retaining the existing dwelling and providing sufficient space between the existing and proposed dwelling to reflect the characteristics of the neighbourhood and sufficient space between the new chalet bungalow and the properties to the north so that there is no adverse impact on their residential amenities. There is a distance of 9m to the boundary with 9 Gainsborough Road and there are only two small bathroom roof lights in the north elevation facing this property.
This is an example of a proposal which resolves the previously identified problems and thus leads to a favourable recommendation.
21 RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 G3C (Sample of materials - submission of details required)
3 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), garage or car port shall be erected nor any hardstanding area extended without express planning permission first being obtained.
4 L6CC (Landscaping to be submitted - full application)
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 G3R
3 To protect the amenities of the area and occupiers of adjacent properties.
4 L6R
------
14. 3/03/0800 Erection Of 2 No Bungalows, Existing Bungalow To Be 13 Jun 2003 Demolished. 13 Edmondsham Road Verwood for T & J Pharoah & E R Hill
TPO
Site Notice Expired: 9 July 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 8 July 2003
Town Council comments: To be reported
Note: This application proposes the demolition of an existing bungalow at 13 Edmonsham Road, Verwood and its replacement with two bungalows.
The proposal seeks to overcome the reasons for refusal (No. 3/03/0309) for a similar proposal that Committee refused following a site visit at its meeting held on 13 May 2003.
That application was refused for the following reason:
"The development in the form shown in the submitted application is not compatible with adjacent development nor is it an improvement; in this respect: 1. The layout is contrived and brings the proposed bungalow on Plot 2 too close to the boundary with 1 Park Drive. 2. It provides a congested layout between Plots 1 and 2 such that, from the street, the two units will appear as one large built form, out of scale with those about. 3. The forward garage and 22 car port for Plot 1 will be an unwelcome element providing an unfortunate additional visual impact in the street.
Taken together it is concluded that the proposal therefore conflicts with Policy 6.303 (as currently numbered) of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002)."
The agent, in his letter that accompanied the application, has stated that plot 1 has been reduced in width and length together with an adjustment to the roof pitch which has reduced the height of the proposed bungalow, and that in respect of plot 2 (adjacent to 1 Park Drive), the large garage/car port has been reduced in bulk and height by the removal of the car port thus moving the building line away from the road, the bungalow has been reduced in length and width and distance from the fence of the property in Park Drive, and a reduction in the roof pitch with a subsequent reduction in height of the bungalow. The rear wall of this bungalow is now level with the rear of 1 Park Drive. It is also advised that there is now sufficient width between the two proposed properties to allow planting to take place and not create an appearance of a single large unit as given as a reason for refusal.
The development is on an edge of town centre site where no particular policies apply to control the form of the development. (The Special Character Area designation was deleted form this area during the modifications to the East Dorset Local Plan following the Inspector's recommendations.)
The proposal represents a low density development with a similar degree of separation between buildings as some properties in Park Drive, The important Oak tree, the subject of a TPO, on the Edmondsham Road frontage will be safeguarded and part of the existing hedge fronting the site will be retained. The relationship with the property at 1 Park Drive has been improved by the reduction in height and length of the dwelling on plot 2.
At the time of writing this report, two letters of objection had been received in respect of the proposal, from 2a Park Drive and from Mandolin Winds in Edmondsham Road. Both objectors consider that the current proposal does not significantly address the earlier reason for refusal and consider that the scheme is still out of character with the area.
Members may conclude that the proposal does not fully address their concerns in respect of the development of this site, but the recommendation still remains one of approval, subject to a S106 Agreement in respect of the Verwood Contributions Policy and the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
23 2 G3C (Sample of materials - submission of details required)
3 L6CC (Landscaping to be submitted - full application)
4 L1CA (Tree protection during construction - modified)
5 V41CA (Parking/turning provision shown constd and retained)
6 D12C (Foul sewer and surface water drains - sub.of det.req.)
7 D13C (Land drainage only - submission of details required)
8 L7C (Existing hedge to be protected and reinforced)
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 G3R
3 L6R
4 L1R
5 V41R
6 D12R
7 D13R
8 L7R
------
15. 3/03/0811 Raise Roof To Provide Additional Bedrooms & 18 Jun 2003 Bathroom. 7 Woodlinken Way Verwood for Mr R Gee
Site Notice expired: 11 July 2003
Nbr-Nfn expired: 11 July 2003
Town Council comments: None received at the time of writing the report. They will be reported verbally to Committee.
Note: Members may recall that a previous application under planning reference number 3/03/0130 was considered by the Committee at its meeting on 22 April 2003 and was refused, contrary to Officer recommendation, on the basis of its impact on the character of the area and the impact on number 5, resulting in loss of light and overlooking, following a Committee site visit.
This application is brought to Committee for determination at the discretion of the District Planning Officer, based on the previous history of this site and the level of public interest which the previous planning application evoked. However, at the time of writing this report only one letter of objection has been received to this latest application. 24 Any further representations will be reported verbally to the Committee. It should be noted that no letters of representation were received from the occupiers of No. 9 in respect of the previous application.
The existing property is a 3 bedroom bungalow. The proposal is to raise the walls and ridge of the rear half of the dwelling to create 2 bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level, retaining the existing master bedroom and a further bedroom on the ground floor. The ridge height at the rear of the dwelling would be raised from 5.5m to 6.1m. This is 0.5m lower than the previous scheme. The other alterations are that one bedroom at first floor has been deleted from the scheme, the window facing No.9 Woodlinken Way and the chimney have been omitted.
The site is within the defined urban area of Verwood where the principle of residential extensions to existing dwellings is acceptable subject to detailed design criteria and meeting the criteria set out in DES8 (para 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan. While it is accepted that the majority of dwellings in the area are bungalows, some of these have been partially extended and dormer windows created to make chalet style bungalows. They are not of uniform design and Woodlinken Way is not a Special Character Area as defined in the East Dorset Local Plan. It is also not an unusual relationship in an urban area to have 2 storey dwellings, or chalet style bungalows adjacent to bungalows. The extension only involves the rear half of the dwelling, thereby minimising its impact in the street scene. The increase in the ridge height has been further reduced from the previous scheme and has been kept to a minimum. It is considered that the proposal will have no material impact on the visual amenities of the area.
Number 7 lies to the north of number 5. There are 2 bedroom windows and a small secondary living room window in the side elevation of number 5, facing north. These rooms are relying on light from across the adjoining property. The amount of light entering the bedrooms is already limited by the close boarded fence which lies 1m away. The application site lies 2m to the north and the roof is sloped away from the boundary. Due to its orientation and design, the proposal will not result in any loss of sunlight to these windows. The extension may result in a slight decrease in natural light to these bedrooms, but the impact is not so substantial as to warrant a refusal of permission.
One staircase window and 2 skylights serving the bathroom and bedroom are proposed on the south elevation facing towards number 5. In order to prevent direct overlooking to number 5, it is suggested that a condition be imposed to make the staircase window obscure glazed and top light opening only. Two windows are proposed in the rear elevation at first floor level. These will look directly west down the rear garden of number 7. Any view of the rear gardens of numbers 5 and 9 will be to the rear part of these adjacent gardens and will be an oblique view. This is not 25 an unusual relationship in an urban area and is considered that there will be no material loss of amenity from these west facing first floor windows.
There are no windows at first floor level in the north elevation of the extension, facing towards the side, south elevation of number 9, which is off set from the boundary. This is an improvement on the previous application which had proposed one window at first floor level looking towards No. 9.
The extension has been designed in sympathy with the existing dwelling, roof slopes have been kept at the same angle and materials are proposed to match the existing. This revised scheme has reduced the scale of the proposal and has addressed as far as possible, many of the concerns expressed in relation to the previous application. Its impact will be limited and it is considered to accord with Policy DES8 (para 6.300) as modified of the East Dorset Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT - SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
1 D2C (Detailed permission - time expiry 5 years)
2 E14C (No further windows in the specified elevation)
3 G4C (Match materials to the existing building)
4 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the staircase windows on the south elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking.
REASON(S) :-
1 D2R
2 E14R
3 G4R
4 G16R
------
26