PLANNING COMMITTEE 28Th May, 2013 SCHEDULE of PLANNING

Everyone 7 128 2346 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 0 0 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 No 28/05/2013 09:30:58 Chief Executive Old 1776 1 Chief Executive Decision Contributors Contact Officer

PLANNING COMMITTEE 28th May, 2013 Agenda Item 6 Public Report

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of Report: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that: the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Development Manager's recommendation. Lead Members: Cllr J Hazel Contact Officer: Giles Moir, Development Management Manager

2. Application Schedule

No. Application No. Site Address Pg.

1. 3/12/1087/COU 321 New Road, Ferndown, Dorset 2 2. 3/13/0074/FUL Land To The East Of Ashton Farmhouse, 32 Stanbridge, Wimborne 3. 3/13/0093/FUL Lower Farm, Gussage St Michael, Wimborne 46 4. 3/13/0099/FUL 22 Highmoor Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 52 5. 3/13/0154/HOU 31 Golf Links Road, Ferndown, Dorset 63 6. 3/13/0166/COU 38 Hillside Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 69 7. 3/13/0190/HOU 24 Westwood Avenue, Ferndown, Dorset 77 8. 3/13/0209/FUL Lingmell, Northleigh Lane, Colehill 79 9. 3/13/0271/HOU 55 Oaks Drive, St Leonards, Ringwood 96 10. 3/13/0276/HOU 25 St Stephens Lane, Verwood, Dorset 101 11. 3/13/0299/HOU 57 Hadrian Way, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 104 12. 3/13/0368/FUL Cinnamon Lounge, Verwood Road, Woodlands 107

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/12/1087/COU

Proposal: Mixed use of site as dwelling and commercial cattery to include the erection of 22 units to house cats, a reception building and 3 additional car parking spaces accessed from New Road as amended by plans rec'd 4/3/13 to clarify side of buildings and amended by plans rec'd 19/4/13. Site Address: 321 New Road, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mrs A Criddle

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Special Character Area Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 16 February 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 12 February 2013

Ferndown Town Council Object Comments: This is out of keeping with the area - inappropriate commercial development in a mainly residential area. There will be additional noise emanating from the proposed development with additional visitors/traffic. It is noted that there are gates at the rear of the property and the Committee wonders whether this has received planning permission in the past?

Further comments received 10.5.13: The Town Council Planning Committee re-considered the matter at their meeting on 2.5.2013. They were of the opinion that their previous comments on the application remain valid and they would continue to object to the granting of Planning Permission. In particular, they believe that the revised Design and Access Statement is inadequate, there will be increased noise emanating from the cats, the proposed development is inappropriate in a mainly residential area and there will be increased traffic problems with visitors arriving at the property, with the area immediately adjacent to and surrounding it having parking restrictions. Members thought that there are inadequate parking facilities on the site to cater for the number of visitors and occupants of the property. It was noted that there would possibly be effluent problems from the proposed cattery given that water flows down the garden from that area and congregates at the bottom of the garden where it can become stagnant water.

Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, Development Liaison Officer subject to the following condition: -

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the access, turning and parking shown on the approved plans has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Further email received 22.3.13 The property has an existing vehicular access off New Road whis has adequate visibility. This section of New Road is subject to parking restrictions and has a 40mph speed limit. This access leads to an extended parking and turning area and a double garage. This frontage parking area alone is suitable for 4 vehicles (not including those in the garage) and has a turning space. There is also opportunity to provide additional parking for the dwelling, if it were needed, at the rear onto Chander Close which is public highway. There are already double gates serving a semi- hardened parking space. Whilst there is no dropped kerb it is understood that a s184 licence under the Highways Act 1980 has been obtained; and would be unlikely to be refused in any event due to the access being at the end of a cul-de- sac on an unclassified road. The expected trip generation for a cattery of this scale with the movements of the existing dwelling is expected to be low; and there is also the opportunity to combine domestic trips with a cat collection and delivery service that is understood will also be offered to clients. The County Highway Authority therefore has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition: - The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the access, turning and parking shown on the approved plans has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

EDDC Tree Section No objections: subject to standard arboricultural conditions.

The property stands in the New Road Special Character Area, and has a number of mature and maturing trees which stand on and adjacent to the

property which are currently protected by tree preservation orders.

Significant trees in the front and rear gardens are likely to be affected by this proposed development. Although no meaningful construction details have been submitted with this application, I am confident that the development proposals could be achieved using a range of currently available professional construction techniques. This should allow the trees to be retained relatively free from long term harm.

Therefore if you are minded to approve this application, please can you place the following arboricultural condition and informative note on this application:

1) Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development or demolition shall start on site until an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement (AMS) in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be agreed at a pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

Reason. To comply with the arboricultural and landscape requirements of Policy DES8 and to ensure that trees and landscape amenity are not harmed or lost during any stage of this development.

EDDC Public Health - I cannot see that the business will cause a noise, Housing And Pollution odour or light nuisance and therefore have no objection assuming the applicant will apply for the standards required under animal boarding establishments.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr Ian Cardall 329 New As many have already written, this proposal fulfils Road, Ferndown virtually all the criteria for why a planning application should be refused. The Design and Access statement is totally inadequate, barely over a side of typing, and

gives no details of the disposal of wastage and of the frequency and timing of cleaning or of the presence of noxious smells. It states clearly that New Road is a special character area, a prime reason why such a development should not be allowed here. It states quite correctly that there are some commercial businesses in the immediate area, but these all involve learned professions and do not involve ugly, intrusive and crudely designed outhouses. Thus this development will have an adverse effect on the immediate neighbours by causing noise and disturbance. There will be an unacceptably high overdevelopment of the site caused by the obliteration of a substantial section of the garden actually bringing the development nearer to the neighbours of the property than to the house on the actual site, a problem where there is already issues of drainage from the property. This over-bearing intrusion will ruin a glorious view which stretches for quite a distance down the road. The development will also add to the traffic on an already busy road. This development will have a serious, adverse effect on the character of the road. All the immediate neighbours and some beyond the immediate area have objected to this development and they have a right to be heard and for their interests to be protected under the Human Rights Act.

S & J D Darby 30 Chander Object Close, Ferndown We wish to register our strong objections to the proposal for a cattery. It would appear that one business, a catering company, is already run from these premises. A cattery business would involve extra traffic, noise and smell from the cats, and deliveries would undoubtedly be made via the back gate in Chander Close, directly outside our house. I say undoubtedly, as during recent building works, vans belonging to builders and contractors were always parked outside our property, making exiting our driveway very difficult. As the cattery itself would be located at the bottom of the garden belonging to No.321 New Road, the garden gate into Chander Close would prove rather convenient for suppliers and collections of refuse, cat litter etc. We sincerely hope that this planning application is rejected, as the current peace and quiet we enjoy in this residential area would be totally ruined.

Mr & Mrs G Ingram 434 New We moved into our bungalow 6 years ago because we Road, Ferndown liked the area and our immediate surroundings. We

now have a block of flats We most strongly object because of the smell and noise.

J M & C Kelly 28 Chander Object Close, Ferndown Major reasons why we think planning should be denied are: 1. The property would then have dual residential and commercial business use. It would appear this could allow future use of the premises to be used for a full commercial business in a residential area. They are already running a catering business from 321 New Road with facilities located at that address. Surely this is an Environmental Health issue. This would affect the New Road residential status and more critically Chander Close which is quiet residential backwater. 2. We feel that a cattery location is more suited to a rural area away from peoples' homes which would be affected by an increase in traffic: a) Initial building work. The turning area in Chander Close was affected by parked cars and lorries for almost 12 months while alterations were made to the applicant's house. They were using the back entrance into the garden and the road was constantly blocked. We are concerned that in future they will try to make this a vehicle entrance as they have erected double gates which have been given prominence on the plans. b) The cages appear to be open and will no doubt raise smell and noise considerations and also attract other cats and we already have foxes in the area. c) It is also noted that fluorescent illumination is to be installed for all night lighting which would affect close neighbours. 3. Access to the Cattery is stated to be off New Road which is also the access for their catering business. We do not understand what it means by application for three new parking spaces. They already have four vehicles parked in their drive - a large refrigerated van, a Freelander, a Peugeot and a Mini. Are these four vehicles staying in their drive and three additional spaces being catered for in their front garden? With the Cattery so near to Chander Close we feel that they will use this back garden gate as an access. This access is used at present for the delivery of large Calor Gas cylinders which are used for their catering business. Their garage is full of refrigerators and other equipment used in connection with their refrigerated van and their catering business, which appears to be run from residential only premises. 4. Chander Close is very narrow and large lorries

cannot turn in the turning space. Rubbish disposal lorries have to back up the road to enable them to drive out again. 5. Finally, although your notes state that statements of loss of value of property should be avoided this is very difficult to ignore. We would not have bought this property two years ago and spent savings on renovating it if there had been an existing Cattery there, so it does beg the question - will anybody else?

Further comments received 26.3.13 Our additional concerns are as follows: 1. The majority of the proposed structure, some 7 units of the cattery back on to Chander Close with 8 more in close proximity. This will be directly opposite and some 25 metres from our front lounge window. We have studied the plans and find them to be a confusing mixture of yards, feet and metres and some not to scale. By measurement of the plans over 50% of the structure is nearer to our home than their own house. I would estimate by some 8 metres. The neighbours on either side of us, 30 and 26, are in a similar situation. Additionally, the neighbours adjacent to the applicant's house look to be in a similar situation, if not worse. 2. The height of the structures indicated on the plans is also confusing. With the addition of foundations and flooring we are looking at more than 2 metres high, well above the rear fencing. The existing blue painted hut is at least 1 metre above the rear fence at present (personally measured) colour-wise it will not blend with the proposed appearance of the installation. 3. Presently there are trees/shrubs creating partial screening. It would be surprising if these were not removed during a construction phase. Would these be replaced by trees/shrubs of a similar height? 4. I have also had the opportunity to view the rear garden from one of their direct neighbours and can only express my horror at the size of the structure taking up some 50% of the applicant's residential garden. 5. Comments by the applicant state that the Chander Close gates will not be used for a cattery. We trust this will include the construction stage if agreed. Use by the catering business should also be prevented as this entrance has been extensively used in the past during house reconstruction. 6. No mention of washing up facilities for the cattery. Will this be done in the same kitchen as is used in the preparation of food for the catering business. 7. Significantly, the question of the accumulation of

cat faeces and urine with frequency or method of disposal has not been mentioned. Disposal of contaminated water produced after cleaning the pens must be a problem, especially if a full complement of 22 cats were present on site. We consider this an inappropriate commercial use of a residential garden and trust that our democratically appointed Councillors on the Planning Committee make the obvious decision that this application should not be allowed.

Further comments received re amended plans, as follows: Our views remain as above. In addition we would like to comment on County Highway's suggestion that the rear entrance could be used and the kerb could be lowered to enable access. This is a quiet residential road with restricted access and not for business purposes of the type existing and envisaged. The access area is a turning space for all vehicles not for overflow parking from 321 New Road. The revised plans again highlight the position of the mass of the proposed cattery close to the boundary fences, particularly the rear fence backing on to Chander Close.

Mrs S Haward 26 Chander Strongly objects to any plans regarding the above Close, Ferndown proposal

Mr D Smalley 319 New Object Road, Ferndown 1. The proposal appears to be contrary to the nature of the "New Road Special Character Area" 2. As there is already a business being operated from this property (namely West Country Catering) I believe that there will be insufficient parking for both businesses and the continued residential use of the property. There are already four vehicles at this property including a commercial van. I would be concerned that clients of the proposed new business would start parking on the road outside the property. It is already difficult pulling out onto the main road when cars are coming at speed around the corner but with cars parked on this road it would make it highly dangerous, especially when service vehicles are exiting the subject property. 3. The current uses, in addition to the proposed use would create further commercial vehicles and also client vehicles delivering and collecting cats. This would be unreasonable in terms of noise pollution from vehicles and the associated car fumes for my adjoining residential property. Manoeuvring of refuse

and service vehicles within the property would be difficult and no doubt cause further noise while these vehicles attempt to exit the subject property. With the existing four vehicles at the property together with the proposed three additional parking spaces it would appear that at least seven vehicles could frequently be manoeuvring just the other side of my fence causing quite a disturbance. 4. The proposed development is too close to the boundary with my property (319 New Road). I have already suffered damage to my property from the building works conducted to date by 321 New Road and I fear that the proposed development will cause further damage to my property. 5. As the proposed reception building is sited too close to my property it will mean that my privacy will be seriously compromised. The users of this business will need to walk along a gravel pathway along the boundary of my property. This in itself will create noise pollution from the people accessing and egressing on gravel. The proposed reception building would be right next to my garden patio and my lounge window (which is where I spend most of my time within my property). Therefore the increase in noise emanating from the property from people talking in the reception area will disturb the peaceful nature of my property. The positioning of the proposed development all along the boundary with my property, especially with external cat pens with no sound insulation, is unreasonable. 6. Noise pollution will be created by not only the users of the cattery business walking to and from the reception but also by: cars accessing the property, deliveries being made and noise from the cats in the garden units and in the isolation units adjoining my patio/lounge area. The cat units would be positioned right up against the boundary of my property and therefore I am likely to be able to hear both the cats (during the day and night) and the people attending to/cleaning out/feeding the cats from my property which will disturb the current peaceful setting of my property. 7. The proximity of the proposed development also gives cause for concern since I note that fluorescent lighting is to be installed for night lighting. I fear that this intrusive lighting would adversely affect the enjoyment of my home. 8. I believe the proposed development would be detrimental to the character of the area. I am of the opinion that there is no need for a cattery in this particular residential area and this proposal constitutes over-development. Such commercial uses

should be sited on the outskirts of town so that the effects of the noise pollution are reduced. 9. The proposed use would increase the traffic on the already busy New Road and through the town. 10. There seems to be inadequate flood risk and surface water management measures to manage the surface water run-off. There has already been a major issue with water coming from the subject property onto my property which resulted in my having to spend a large sum of money in re-tarmacking my driveway. The proposed development will only worsen this problem due to the increased amount of hardstanding required. Alleviating this problem with gravel would only increase the issue with noise. 11. The subject property is sited on a slightly elevated position compared with my adjacent property. There is currently only a low fence between our properties in the front garden. My property is a chalet bungalow, therefore most of my home (including bathrooms and bedrooms) is on the ground floor which would be overlooked, both by the visitors parking at the property and the pedestrians going down the side of my property to access the reception. I also think that the roofs of the cattery pens themselves and the reception will be visible from my property. 12. In relation to the proposed new additional use of the property, I would have expected there to be an environmental health issue arising from running both the existing catering business and the proposed cattery business from the same premises. 13. I am concerned that there may be a risk of contamination from the cats. This would include from their faeces and urine and any diseases the cats may carry. I am concerned that there may be a potential for the odour to create a nuisance. 14. I think that the proposed development may also attract foxes and vermin due to any left over food. 15. If any of the cats were to escape onto the busy New Road this could create potential accidents. Further letter received 1.5.13 I confirm my views remain as set out in my letter of 5 February 2013. I would add that since my letter the applicants have removed my fencing without my permission along the boundary between 319 and 321 New Road. The applicants have instead erected tall fencing along this boundary which is not vertical and is significantly leaning diagonally over my property. In any high wind this fencing would easily fall down onto my property and do significant damage to cars parked below it. In addition, the fencing nearly touching the gutters of my

property. I presume that the applicants have erected this fencing in an attempt to screen off their proposed business activities at the property however this is unacceptable from both an aesthetic point of view or a property maintenance perspective since I now cannot access my gutters etc. Many people have commented to me about the leaning fences and from a site visit this would be obvious to the planning officer. I would add that the applicants fencing/screening of this proposed business needs to be amended.

M & R Jones 323 New We are strongly opposed to the proposed planning Road, Ferndown application from Mrs A. Criddle, at 321 New Road, Ferndown, to build a cattery in the back garden, for many reasons. 1. A commercial business, West Country Catering, is already based at this premises, apparently without permission. This is a well established residential area and a designated Special Character Area, not an industrial estate or rural small- holding. 2. The proposed development is not in keeping with the stylistic context or scale of the local area and will have a negative impact on the amenity of not only our property, but on that of all the surrounding properties in New Road and Chander Close through screeching noises, toxic foul smells, overlooking, night illuminations, vermin and late night activities. A. I, Mrs M. Jones, am allergic to cats. I have respiratory airway problems and have prescriptions for various inhalers, as well as an Epipen for severe anaphylaxis. My Daughter is staying with us and she too is severely allergic to cats. My 5 year old Granddaughter sadly is also prone to the same respiratory problems. B. Please see WHO, World Health Organisation, and EPA, Environmental Protection Agency reports on cat's urine, cat's faeces, cat litter, carcinogen crystalline in combination with ammonia making toxic, airborne hazardous fumes causing respiratory diseases in as little as 50 ppm! Cats with separation issues will make even more urine and faeces. C. Cats can make screeching noises when grouped together, day or night. Sound travels and these horrible noises will be heard not just in our immediate vicinity but in a much larger radius around here day or night. D. Vermin, foxes and other cats will be a bigger problem than they are at the moment, especially at night. E. The proposed development will impact on a

designated Special Conservation Area and will result in a significant loss of trees and bushes. Our rooms and bedrooms will overlook industrial huts with night illuminations, as will other residents in New Road and Chander Close, not pleasant greenery. F. The local infrastructure is not adequate to serve this proposed industry. The sewage and water pipes are very old and we already have to deal with blocked drains every 6 months or so. The ground between 321 New Road and 319 New Road regularly floods. Foul waste water and hazardous materials could further contaminate the ground. This will have an economic impact, as well as an environmental health impact. G. Furthermore ref the infrastructure, there will be traffic problems in both roads, such as access, safety issues, and extra traffic generation such as delivery lorries, waste lorries etc, causing more traffic jams up to Penny's Hill crossroads. H. The proposal provides insufficient parking spaces as there are already 4 vehicles, including a large refrigerated van for West Country Catering in the front of the property. Presumably these 4 vehicles may end up being parked in Chander Close. 3. Approval would create a precedent, meaning that it would be difficult to object to similar proposals in the residential areas of Ferndown. 4. The cumulative impact of the development when considered alongside all the other homes in this residential area will have hugely adverse implications for the whole area, as well as for the peace and health of everyone living here.

W G & M F Price 430 New Object Road, Ferndown We live opposite, in an area of special character, a very pleasant residential road. The introduction of more deliveries on an already busy road would mean more noise and congestion. The proposed introduction of such a large number of animals could lead to nauseous smells wafted towards our property.

Mrs Daphne Phillips 432 I objected to the first proposal and am objecting to this New Road, Ferndown proposal also. It is not a suitable position for a cattery to be sited and will blight the surrounding houses and cause more traffic problems along the road, which already has a regular build up on approaching the traffic lights. There have been many objections to this, and it has not been approved by the Parish Council. I sincerely hope you will not approve it, and take into account the

many objections you have received.I wish to object to the plan. New Road is residential, in the main and to add a cattery is not in keeping with the area. There will be more traffic on an already busy road. The construction of 22 units will be very disruptive to the residents, and once up and running it will cause a lot of problems, with extra refuse to be dealt with and the general upkeep of the units.

Mr Roy Pulling 325 New I am writing to reiterate my objections submitted when Road, Ferndown the first application was sent in. Although a fresh application has been submitted this in no way invalidates my original objections.I consider this proposal to be totally unsuitable for a close knit residential area and particularly bordering on a narrow service road which Chandler Close is. Chandler Close is totally unsuitable for commercial traffic such as delivery lorries and customers delivering and collecting cats for boarding. The road was never intended for such traffic which would be a hazard and nuisance to the residents affected.

Mr James Farrant 311 New I strongly object to the application to create a cattery Road, Ferndown at 321 New Road. This is a residential area of special character and should be cherished and preserved as such. This proposal is totally out of keeping and utterly inappropriate. Many other neighbours have objected eloquently and I would simply like to reiterate the unacceptable traffic, noise, smell and potential health hazards this development would create. The plots in New Road and Chander Close were designed for spacious residential dwellings and should be protected by the Council for residential use only. I would like to confirm that I still strongly object to this planning application for the same reasons as previously stated. The well expressed views of the surrounding neighbours should be respected by the Planning Officer and the special character of this residential neighbourhood should be preserved by refusing permission for this commercial use.

Mr Wayne Barraball 43 Additional Objection on behalf of neighbouring Braemar Avenue, residents. Hengistbury Head Summary of letter received 5.4.13. Full letter on file. I still have serious concerns over the handling of this application and the information supplied; the neighbours have requested that I submit these to you. A number of the questions on the application form have not been filled in accurately and could have been identified by the case officer after a site visit e.g. the tree question. I believe that the application should

not be resubmitted to the next Committee with the same report and recommendation and I set out below the reasons for this viewpoint. I would also clarify that I am not the representative of all the objectors. 1. The application was only made valid on 27 March when the D&A Statement was received in response to your late request for one the day before. I believe that you can legitimately start the 8 week period again so there is no inherent need to rush the application to 30 April meeting as the May Committee would give a decision in 8 weeks bearing in mind you have a morning Committee and the notice could be dated and posted that day. 2. The case officer has confirmed that there were concerns about the accuracy of the plans and on 4 March additional plans were received; you failed to upload these onto the website or notify neighbours. You also say that amended plans for the cattery structures are still awaited. I think that you should notify objectors of these facts and that they have a reasonable period of time to respond to them. The plans may now be scaled more accurately but the quality leaves a lot to be desired. The amended site plan has also omitted the front part of the site and the car park spaces and there is no sign of the existing shed or large TPO Fir tree to the rear; again this plan is unacceptable. I am concerned that you believe that you were previously able to make a recommendation for approval on the basis of the original inadequate plans. 3. I am assuming that your recommendation was made after the receipt of 4 March plans. Your officer report, however, doesn't list the 4 March plans in the recommended list of approved documents. Thus, if the application had been approved as set out it would not have included the 4 March plans and would have sanctioned conflicting dimensional plans that would have been unenforceable. 4. The D&A Statement follows few of the guidelines set out in the former CABE document and other appropriate guidance notes and is severely lacking in detail and useful information. A total disregard for the purpose of the statement has been shown and to make a favourable decision on this information is questionable. There has been no pre-application consultation with neighbours There is no mention of the existing business operating from the site or analysis of the character of the area and the significance of the SCA. 5. There would appear to be no real understanding or explanation of how the cattery business will operate

when compared to personal knowledge of other establishment. The hours of opening on the application form are also longer than that stated in the report; which is correct? 6. The reference to lighting of the cattery is also questionable. 7. The car parking layout has not taken into account the owners' own vehicles. In order for the three spaces to be kept available and used by clients such that they can turn round and exit the site in a forward gear, it would normally require at least 6 metres of clear space to be left in front. The applicant has stated that they have 3 vehicles. 8. It is understood that residents do not have rights to private views over private land. However, this proposal would result in concentrated commercial activity in close proximity to the rear gardens of adjacent dwellings. 9. Finally, it is a concern that no detail has been supplied relating to trade waste disposal/bin collection (agreed on application form), wash down drainage disposal, noise from the gravel pathways and disabled access along these paths. In summary, I believe that there are still important procedural matters that need to be addressed and that the application should not be presented to the April Committee. I understood that you also had to show how you had considered the Human Rights issues under Article 8 in your report? The neighbours deserve to have the levels of residential amenity that they currently enjoy respected and appropriately considered before any recommendation for approval is proposed. Irrespective of what may have been granted elsewhere, this location has been accepted by the Council to have exceptional qualities indicated by its designation as a SCA. To allow a commercial use of such potential nuisance and detrimental impact on neighbouring properties shows a complete lack of understanding.

Further comments received 8 May 2013: I mentioned in my objection letter the concerns that the front garden area and its proposed car parking spaces could lead to problems when used in association with the owners commercial vehicle and private car and staff vehicles.

Please see the attached photo of the driveway already laid out with gravel (no spaces therefore can be marked) with the commercial van in one of them. You

will see how far it extends back and this will result in customers delivering/collecting cats plus delivery vehicles of litter/food/ cleaning and other supplies etc having difficulties in turning which could result in vehicles exiting the site in reverse. You will have no control over where the owners park their own vehicles if approval is given?

Can you please ensure that the highway officer is fully aware of this situation prior to your next recommendation being finalised.

Roger Callaway 36 Chander Object Close, Ferndown As 321 New Road is already being used to operate a business (West Country Catering) the front is normally full of vehicles, therefore I foresee the back entrance in Chander Close being used for deliveries and visiting clients. Chander Close is narrow and has two bends making passing very difficult, at this point there is no footpath therefore putting pedestrian safety at risk. If cars are parked in Chander Close it will restrict access for refuse collection and emergency vehicles, which will be to the detriment of our wellbeing, put our lives and properties in danger. We bought our property in a residential area not expecting it to be turned to commercial area. The introduction of commercial cattery will bring strong odours, noise and movements to a small quiet cul-de- sac. With large amounts of animal food available there naturally comes vermin (RATS) which we can do without. If the applicants wanted set up business's they should have chosen a more appropriate area. It seems they are only interested in making money for themselves with no regard to the lives and well being of the neighbourhood. Further comments recd. 26.4.13: My original objections given in February remain, even though the plans have been amended. The amendments do not affect any of my original objections.

Mr Geoffrey Reakes 422 I observe that the official offering comments on New Road, Ferndown Health, Safety, & environmental aspects has dismissed the objections of the entire local community. I therefore express no confidence in the views of the official. There is no evidence of a risk assessment, or that CIEH recommendations to safeguard human health and (in this case) the food chain from contagious diseases can be managed in this urban location. For the avoidance of doubt please

note that my previous comments still stand. Along with many others of this community I strongly object to any spoiling of this Special Character Area, which was initiated by EDDC itself, and of which the EDDC should take note. Ferndown Town Council has also objected. I have now visited and viewed two similar premises in the Wimborne/Ferndown area which has served to convince me of my views stated earlier. I cannot see any statement from EDDC providing a reason why this application has been resubmitted. This part of New Road is probably the last entry/exit road in Ferndown that retains some of the original charm and character of the 'Parish'. There is no evidence that the responsible official/s are sensitive to this special environment. The on-line system for searching planning applications has been inoperative frequently in the past few weeks, however failure notices issued by me have been responded to quickly. My thanks to EDDC staff for that.

Allowing for the breaks in IT service I am aware that some 40+ people in proximity of this residential area have signed a separate paper-based petition against the application which appears to be aimed at developing the property into a trading estate operation. I am grateful to have seen the observations made to date, particularly those detailed in the 28 Chandler Close submission, and concur with those and others objecting similarly.

I would like to see Ferndown Councillors taking a keener interest (or any interest) in these cases, and for the Highways advisers to take heed of the exact scene of applications and apply some common sense. I witness frequent near misses and excessive speed along this short stretch of road between the Fire Station and the bend near Chander Close. Given the number of multiple dwellings extant and planned (particularly No 440) together with hidden exits residents lives are put at risk daily. Backing out commercial vehicles onto New Road seems to be a favourite perversion of the Highway Code.

It would be useful to residents across the landscape concerned to know the legal currency of the New Road (northern part) Special Character Area as defined in documents issued by EDDC Planning Department in July 2004. Wherever I look I now see (present and planned) bulk and massing brought about by stubborn Council resistance to the views of the local population.

Note: My property was purchased from (short title) Lord Wimborne who forbids me to carry out any trade, manufacture, or business of any kind, or indeed keep swine. Neither am I permitted any shed apart from a garden or tool shed. And no trade advertisement shall be exhibited. I am also not allowed to cause annoyance or disturbance. There has been creeping commercialisation down this road starting from the 'Sports Clinic' and occasionally a 'Hearing Aid Centre'. Presumably there will need to be more than 3 car parking spaces: residents + visitors, plus advertising boards. This part of New Road has very fast traffic. I may wish to comment further.

Mrs Marianne Jones 323 Please note that my previous comments still stand. I New Road, Ferndown strongly object to any spoiling of this Special Character Area, which was initiated by EDDC itself, and of which the EDDC should take note. So many neighbours in New Road & Chander Close have objected on many different grounds to this noxious, commercial cattery application, including several very close neighbours who are now too ill to voice their opinions. Ferndown Town Council has also objected, and indeed it is now costing EDDC ratepayers even more money because of the extra administration costs incurred over the previous maladministered application. I understand that the Design and Access statement is still inadequate. EDDC have a duty of care to the whole neighbourhood, as well as for the amenities of the immediate neighbours, some whom are still in hospital or nursing homes, under article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The Criddles have been sent a solicitor's letter informing them that there are Restrictive Covenants on all the land around here, which prohibits this type of commercial activity, and that they will be in breach if they go ahead.

James M Kelly 28 Chander Petition on behalf of 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 4, 42, Close, Ferndown 44, 1, 2, 26 Chander Close residents and 325 New Road 1. Inappropriate commercialisation of a quiet residential area through use of extensive garden- based structures with all night illumination. There appears to be little respect for the character and neighbours of the locality. Additionally, it is likely that bushes and other vegetation will be removed from the boundary area which will make the tops of the

structures more visible from the roadway. 2. In the event planning was granted, there would be nothing to stop other future non residential commercialisation taking place at the same address and other premises in the immediate locality. 3. Potential for increased cattery size and commercial delivery traffic in a road with restricted access. Dorset Council lorries have to back up the road for rubbish clearance. 4. Potential for cats urine smells within the neighbourhood arising from open caged animals and the attraction of other cats and other animals. Foxes are already present in the area. 5. It has been reported that cats make loud screeching noises when grouped together in catteries. This would be most unwelcome in the neighbourhood. 6. An obvious commercial business is already based at the premises apparently without permission.

Mr R Jones 323 New Road, Government's Planning Policy Statement 1 Ferndown 'Planning shapes the places where people live and work and in the county we live in. Good planning ensures we get the right development, in the right place at the right time'

How can a cattery in a residential and Special Character Area meet the above criteria? I strongly object to the application to build 22 large, tall wooden sheds and a reception area in the small rear garden of 321 New Road, which will actually be closer to our property and to that of Mr & Mrs Kelly of Chander Close, than that of the applicant's own house! Under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act this business will affect my amenities. This is a lovely residential area, designated as a Special Character Area by no less than East Dorset District Council. It is not a commercial or industrial area and therefore this noxious application should be rejected by the planning officer! It is totally out of character to this area and quite unacceptable to every neighbour around here. Why don't the planners take notice of numerous objections from the people who live here as well as the objections made by Ferndown Town Council too? There are Restrictive Covenants on all the land in this vicinity, which prohibits this type of commercial business. Only "learned professions" like chiropractors, audiologists, doctors, solicitors etc are permitted to practice. The applicant will be in breach of these covenants if the cattery goes ahead and will be open to legal proceedings by the neighbours. The

applicant has been notified of this by solicitors acting on behalf of the neighbours. I have not objected to the existing business, West Country Catering, which is also operating from 321 New Road. Have the Environmental Health officers inspected the back garden boundary between 319 & 321 properly? They should inspect when it is raining heavily! This garden area floods regularly from 321 into 319 New Road from ordinary rainwater, because this land is on a hill, so any faecal contaminated water from sluicing the cat sheds will run into the garden of 319, a possible serious health hazard!

Mr Simon Darnell 315 New This is a quiet, residential area and a commercial Road, Ferndown enterprise of this nature with associated signage, deliveries, collections and customer traffic is quite inappropriate, especially as this part of New Road is an area of Special Character. In addition, as my garden is only about 40 yards from the proposed units, I am concerned about the noise and smells that may result from a large number of cats. I still object to this application for the same reasons listed in my previous comment submitted on 4th February.

R V Bell 42 Chander Close, Object Ferndown The complex will be clearly visible by adjoining neighbours and from properties fronting onto Chander Close. The wooden building will have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the surrounding area. Cat vocalisation and smell will be a source of nuisance day and night to nearby residents. Cat waste has an offensive smell and attracts foxes and other vermin. The 3 additional parking spaces shown does not take account of the 3 cars and large commercial refrigerated van already parked on the driveway. At busy times there will not be enough space for customers to park and turn round. The volume of traffic prevents backing out on to New Road. It would appear that no. 321 is already used as a contact address for a commercial catering company and the addition of a cattery with the deliveries of food and supplies, the removal of waste and rubbish will cause an unacceptable level of disturbance to local residents.

22 Named Petition , Petition from 22 residents in New Road stating: Object Inappropriate commercialisation of a quiet residential area.

Un-neighbourly form of development, unsympathetic to the residential character. The potential to cause excess noise plus urine/faeces smells which will attract vermin. Commercial business already operating. Potential for increased traffic congestion.

Ms E Judd 317 New Road, Object Ferndown New Road is a residential area and is described as New Road Special Character Area. I note that on 5/4/2012 Mr Criddle mentioned ' the special character of New Road' when objecting to another development, that is double standards. Residential Area. There is already one business (West Country Foods) being carried out from this residential property to have a cattery as well is excessive and un-neighbourly. Access-Traffic-Parking. At the moment there are always 3 or 4 vehicles parked on the front drive with 3 extra parking spaces that will be 7 or 8. How will the vehicles be able to turn round and face forward to enter New Road which I understand is a planning condition of properties in New Road, it certainly is of mine? There will be an increase in the amount of vehicular activity. My concern is that the easy option is to use Chander Close as the access point. This is a narrow quiet road and can easily be obstructed by vehicles parked there. Noise - There will be noise from delivery vehicles, refuse and service vehicles, cats wailing throughout the day and night, clients and staff talking and the units being opened and closed. I live next door but one to the property and the units are to be right next door to my neighbours fence, so I am close by. Light pollution at night from the fluorescent lighting. Cats units - These will be visible from my property as they are to be 7 feet tall. Health and Safety Issues - catering and cats on the same premises. Odour from cats urine and faeces, pests and vermin. A cattery should be in a more rural area not a residential area.

Further letter received 30.4.13 I have viewed the amended plans on the internet. I consider the plans to be of poor quality, as with the previous plans. I wish to reiterate my objections submitted on 11 February 2103. Although amended plans have been submitted my views remain the same.

V A Davies 40 Chander Object Close, Ferndown The erection and use of 22 units to house cats will create cat smell and surplus food, used cat litter etc will encourage vermin and foxes. Although access is stated to be from New Road, I believe that the rear entrance of the property facing on to Chander Close will be used for deliveries of rubbish disposal, food deliveries etc as the store room is already in place next to high double gates that have been recently erected. Chander Close is a very narrow road, when 321 was recently being extended the rear entrance was used by suppliers and workmen parking in the road making it difficult for vehicles to turn round and the increased volume of traffic, at times, caused problems. Has planning permission already been granted for the use of this property as a commercial dwelling? I ask this question because I found on the Internet a catering company gives 321 New Road as its address - West Country Catering.

Mr P Rule 317 New Road, Object Ferndown I do not wish to have a cattery and catering business two doors from 317 New Road in a nice residential area. Objections are: Noise, smell, waste disposal, vermin, flies, light pollution

Further letter received 1.5.13 I have viewed the amended plans for the commercial cattery. I still object to this application for the same reasons as stated on 12 February 2013.

Ms J S Burleigh And W C Object Barnes 38 Chander Close, We had to call an emergency ambulance for my Ferndown mother who was living here at the time and the driver did say that due to a vehicle parked on the other side of the road (321 rear access) it had made it a little difficult for them to turn around to come to us. So this incident seems to highlight a problem for any emergency service accessing this road if there is any vehicle parked on the other side and would like to point out also, that our recycling lorry finds it easier to reverse all the way on collection day, and that's without any obstruction on the other side of the road. We had noticed vehicles parked there consistently and that they had put a new access in their boundary onto Chander Close and assumed they were using this for deliveries for their catering business or for workmen arriving in connection with their

garage/building extension. So we can only assume they may want to use this rear access for their proposed cattery business for food deliveries, rubbish clearance etc. and perhaps this new access was constructed specifically for vehicular access. Also we feel vermin could be an issue. To conclude, that as well as the emergency access issue to Chander Close, we also feel this proposed cattery business is totally inappropriate to a residential area.

Mrs Marilyn Callaway 36 Object Chander Close, Ferndown Although a home, this site is already being used for commercial purposes with several cars and a large refrigerated van parked in the driveway for most of the time. There is no space for additional parking other than for the vehicles already using it. At present there are no suggestions that the rear access will be used but I am sure that given time, deliveries, pickups, rubbish disposal, cat litter disposal, food deliveries etc. will probably become common place. Chander Close which is at the rear of the property is a small, narrow and very quiet road used by the people who live in it. Any increase in traffic would spoil the atmosphere of this road for those, like me, who bought our properties because it is close to the town while maintaining the atmosphere we currently enjoy. Because Chander Close is narrow, it can also be difficult for two vehicles to pass especially if one of the vehicles is a commercial one. It is particularly narrow on the dogleg outside 40 Chander Close and passing here can be impossible. If vehicles were to park in the turning space at the rear of 321 New Road, the turning space would no longer exist.

Further comments recd. 26.4.13: I stand by my original objection. The new plans make no difference to my original reasons. Regarding the County Highways Development Liaison Officer's comments, I would like to reinforce several objections already made to this, as Chander Close is too narrow for parked cars and the turning circle needs to be kept free. As far as the double gates and the possibility of a future dropped curb are concerned, I was informed by the Council, about three years ago, that the narrow strip of land between the fences and the curb belong to neither the Council or the properties in New Road and I would, therefore, question the legality of a

permanent access over land which is not the applicants'. If the proposal is granted, I would be concerned about the standard of the new units.

Officers Report:

This application comes to committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval, the Town Council has objected and there have been 21 letters of objection and 2 petitions from nearby residents.

The proposal is to create a mixed use of the site to allow residential use of the dwelling and a cattery business with 22 cat housing units (2 cats of the same family allowed per unit. 44 cats maximum) in the rear garden, together with a reception/isolation building, new hard surfacing and 3 additional parking spaces (at the front of the property).

Sixteen of the units would be constructed in an L-shape and be at the end of the rear garden next to the rear boundary with Chander Close and the side boundary with 319 New Rd. Four units would face the L-shaped block in the centre of the rear of the existing garden, and the reception building with 2 isolation units would be immediately at the rear of the dwelling next to the boundary with 319 New Road.

The site is in the New Road Special Character Area (SCA) and has a Tree Protection Order covering it. It is also within the area where a transportation contribution may be required by the South East Dorset Transportation Contributions Scheme 2.

The following policy is applicable;

East Dorset Local Plan 2002 Unsaved Policies BUCON6, TRANS2, TRANS10 and TRANS14; Saved Policy DES2, and Policy DES8 which is to be replaced by Policy HE2 in the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy (CS).

When adopted, the new development plan will comprise the CS and Saved Policies and these carry a good deal of weight as the CS is at an advanced stage of preparation. The Unsaved policies do not carry as much weight.

Policies KS11 and HE2 of the CS are also applicable together with the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The operation of the business

The applicant has clarified how she intends to operate the business and this is helpful to establish the likely impacts from the proposal;

The minimum stay for a cat will be 3 days, and it is anticipated that most cats would stay for 1 or 2 weeks or more. It is expected that each client would be on the site for 5 minutes to drop off or collect a cat, and any bell for clients to ring will sound inside the house or reception building, therefore minimising disturbance to neighbours.

The cattery will be open for visitors by appointment between 10:00 and 12:00 and 15:00 and 17:00 on Mondays to Saturdays and 10:00 to 12:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The applicant will also offer a collection and delivery service.

1 full-time member of staff and 2 part-time members are to be employed by the cattery should they be required. The part-time staff will be on site at different times.

The applicant expects very few deliveries as she intends to purchase most items on an infrequent basis in bulk from the cash and carry.

No deliveries or arrival of clients will be via Chander Close, and the applicant does not envisage any increased traffic in Chander Close.

There will be internal lighting for the cattery and this will only operate until 5pm in the winter and not at all in the summer unless there is an emergency. The lighting in the safety corridor will be low level.

The heating in the cattery will be provided by low voltage panel heaters that do not glow. Any lighting that is needed in the early evening for additional checks will be low level and only switched on when necessary.

The applicant proposes that access arrangements for customers with a disability will be available on the business’s website, and these will also be explained when bookings take place so that customers will know what to expect on arrival.

The time needed for customers to be on site will be minimised by preparing the paperwork required for individual cat stays in advance so there will be minimal administration when customers are on site, and an appointment system will be used.

To address the potential issue of vermin being attracted to the site, bagged cat food will be stored in a metal cupboard in an outbuilding and vermin control will be in place.

The application site is surrounded on all sides by fences/hedges/trees which exceed 1.8m in height and will provide screening. The applicant has confirmed that although there are trees on the development site, no significant trees will be affected by the development.

The applicants operate another business (West Country Catering) from the site. This is a small outside catering business that trades only on Saturdays in the summer. It has been confirmed that all the catering is carried out at the client’s venue and deliveries go directly to the client’s venue.

This business is operated as a sole trader and the garage is used to store personal property and business equipment. There are no staff employed at the site in association with this business.

The applicant has stated that deliveries are few and far between and consist of fresh vegetables and sometimes rolls on a Saturday which are taken directly to the client’s venue. Everything else goes directly to the venue.

The property had planning permission granted in 1975 for using part of it for a business, but this was temporary and expired in 1976.

The applicant has stated that the driveway at the site can accommodate space to park at least six vehicles and as there will only be 1 client on the premises at any one time. The catering business has one small van. Based on this information it appears that this use would not require planning permission due to its low-key nature.

The main issues are the impact of the proposal on the SCA, the amenities of the occupants of adjacent dwellings, and highway safety.

Impact on the SCA

Low-level timber buildings are proposed that would be sited behind the house and these would not be visible from New Rd. Three additional parking spaces are shown at the front, and these would be screened to a large extent by the existing conifer trees along the site’s boundary with New Road.

Given the position of the new units and building behind the dwelling, no adverse impact is expected for the street scene of New Road. The low-level nature of the buildings and small size will make them appears as subservient outbuildings which would not be easily open to public views.

The buildings would be seen from the upper windows of adjacent properties, but this would not result in a visual impact that can be afforded significant weight in the planning assessment.

It is concluded that no adverse impact on the street scene or SCA is likely to occur, and therefore the proposal accords with Policies DES8 and BUCON6 of the EDLP, as well as policy HE2 of the CS.

Impact on the amenities of the occupants of adjacent dwellings

Although the new buildings would be screened to a degree by the existing site boundary treatment, this would not offer complete screening, and the buildings would be apparent above the hedge on the boundary with 319 New Rd. However, their small scale would not allow a significant impact on the amenity of the occupants of 319 or 323 New Rd or the properties at Chander Close.

The operation of the new cattery would result in additional vehicle movements to the site and the use of additional surface parking at the front, with access from New Road. This would bring some additional disturbance to the occupants of 319 and 323 New Rd. However, given that New Road is well used by traffic, this creates a higher ambient noise level than a site removed from a main road. The additional noise generated by the additional traffic movements is not expected to add significantly to the existing background noise levels.

Disturbance would also arise from customers bringing cats to the site and delivering them to the housing units, as this would involve walking next to the site’s boundary with 319 New Rd, and noise is likely from conversations and door opening/shutting close to the rear of 319.

The Council’s Public Health Officer raises no objection as it is not considered that the proposed use is likely to cause noise, odour or light nuisance to occupants of adjacent properties. This view is shared by Planning Officers, given the small-scale operation proposed and the limited delivery and collection times for cats.

In terms of animal welfare, the Public Health Officer considers the proposed use would be acceptable provided the accommodation meets the standards of the Animal Boarding Establishment. This is separate legislation to planning and the applicant would need both to operate lawfully.

The Council has approved catteries in residential areas in the district, and these have been found to have little impact on the amenities of the occupants of adjacent dwellings. Members may be aware of the cattery at 208 Leigh Road, Wimborne (now with planning permission for dwellings granted at committee this year). This was also in a residential area with a well trafficked road outside.

It is considered that the cattery will not bring significant impacts for the adjacent residents, and is acceptable in terms of Saved Policies DES8 and DES2 of the East Dorset Local Plan, and Policy HE2 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Impact on highway safety

The proposal will use the existing access onto New Road and 3 additional parking spaces would be formed in the front garden near the boundary with 323 New Road.

Having visited the site, Dorset County Council (DCC) Highways consider that there is sufficient space on the site for customer and residential parking, with adequate space for manoeuvring to allow vehicles to leave the site in a forward gear. They have raised no objection and advise a condition to require the parking, turning and access shown on the submitted plans to be provided before the cattery is occupied or used.

DCC Highways are aware of the existing catering business at the premises and have based their view on this and the residential use of the site.

No adverse impact on highway safety is therefore expected.

Impact on surface water drainage

There have been concerns over the proposal’s effect on surface water drainage at the site from local residents. The applicant has confirmed that there have been no problems with surface water since the driveway at the property was improved last year, and further improvements which are already being done will be beneficial.

Surface water from the new buildings is to be directed to soakaways as stated in the application form. Given the small amount of addition roof proposed and proposal to dispose of this into soakaways, it is not considered that the proposal is likely to contribute to surface water flooding at the site.

Impact on transport infrastructure

The site lies within the area covered by the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2. However, Dorset County Council Highways do not consider a contribution is required due to the small number of likely traffic movements which would result from the new cattery business.

Human Rights

There has been mention (in the representations received) of the proposal infringing Article 8 of the Human Rights Act in terms of the occupants of the adjacent dwellings.

Article 8 concerns the right to respect for private and family life. It has 2 provisions;

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Should permission be granted for the proposal, it would have some impact on the private and family life of the immediately adjacent residents but not to such a level, as already analysed in this report, that would interfere with the Human Rights of the neighbouring occupants. In addition, it is necessary to consider the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant, and those of the community as denying the permission would have implications in this regard.

In assessing the human rights issue, it is considered that the cattery use would not seriously affect the right for the adjacent occupants to peacefully enjoy their home, and therefore there is no infringement of the human rights of these people.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

1:1250 Location Plan

1:500 Site Plan received 15.1.2013

Layout Plan (colour) un-scaled

1:100 Cattery elevations received 15.1.2013

1:50 Reception and isolation building elevations received 15.1.2013

1:50 Reception and isolation building Section and Floor Plan received 15.1.2013

Cattery housing unit side view received 15.1.2013

Floor Plans for the cat pens received 15.1.2013

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

3. The external facing and roofing materials of the buildings hereby permitted shall be; Roof – Dark green/black felt and clear polycarbonate sheeting. Walls – Brown stained timber ship lap boarding with clear plastic sheeting

All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the buildings is satisfactory.

3 The external facing and roofing materials of the buildings hereby permitted shall be; Roof – Dark green/black felt and clear polycarbonate sheeting. Walls – Brown stained timber ship lap boarding with clear plastic sheeting

All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the buildings is satisfactory.

4 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the hard and soft landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs thereon and details of hard surfacing, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval the hard and soft landscaping shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and any new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS5837:2012 immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any

specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

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

5 Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, there shall be no external lighting to serve the cattery unless full details of it have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of nearby residents.

6 Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development or demolition shall start on site until an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement (AMS) in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be agreed at a pre- commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

Reason: To comply with the arboricultural and landscape requirements of Policy DES8 and to ensure that trees and landscape amenity are not harmed or lost during any stage of this development.

7 Notwithstanding the Amended Site Plan received 19.4.2013 submitted with the application, prior to the commencement of use of the site as a cattery, precise details of the parking and turning shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall not be utilised until the access, turning and parking shown on the approved plan has been provided. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

8 The number of units to house cats at the cattery hereby approved shall not exceed 22 at any one time (maximum of 44 cats as each unit may be occupied by 2 cats from the same family).

Reason: To limit the intensity of use of the site in the interests of the amenity of the occupants of adjacent dwellings.

9 There shall be no use of the access onto Chander Close for any reason associated with the cattery business.

Reason: To prevent disturbance to the occupants of Chander Close and minimise vehicle movements in this narrow road.

10 There shall be no delivery or collection of cats at the premises by clients outside the hours of 09:30 to 12:30 and 14:30 to 17:30 on Mondays to Saturdays and 10:00 to 12:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To minimise disturbance to the occupants of adjacent dwellings.

Informatives:

1 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy HE2 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy Pre-Submission Consultation 5.11.2012 to 21.12.2012 in the determination of the application.

2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; • offering a pre-application advice service, and • as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application:

• the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, • the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, • The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

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 DES2 TRANS2 TRAN10

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/13/0074/FUL

Proposal: The construction of an agricultural anaerobic digestion system with associated access and storage areas and security fencing. New storage lagoon to store digestate 620m to the north east.

Site Address: Land To The East Of Ashton Farmhouse, Stanbridge, Wimborne, for Sir Richard Glyn

Constraints Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Bournemouth International Airport Green Belt LP Groundwater Source Protection Zone Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Site of Nature Conservation Importance Site Notice exp: 22 March 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 7 March 2013

Hinton Parva Parish Support Council Comments: This is a far sighted scheme that will reduce CO2 emissions, use up waste farm products and generate electricity. The plant is well screened and every effort has been made to reduce the height of the digesters to lessen impact on the surroundings.

Consultee Responses: Dorset Wildlife Trust No comments received to date.

EDDC Tree Section No objections: subject to conditioning appropriate arboricultural provision and landscape replacement planting.

The installation of the digestion unit in the location of a small conifer plantation is noted. I have seen no details of how the unit functions in relation to the storage lagoon, and whether there will be pipework or similar above or below ground infrastructure required.

I also note from the design and access statement that an amount of appropriate landscaping is being suggested as part of this development proposal.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would wish to see appropriate arboricultural supervision applied to this development.

Therefore, if you are minded to approve this application, please can you request that the following tree protection conditions are applied to any planning approval for this site:-

Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application:

The protection of trees in relation to this proposed development shall be in accordance with BS5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations. These details to be submitted to EDDC for written approval prior to works commencing on site.

A list of suitable replacement trees, shrubs and hedging plants, and a method statement for their appropriate planting and aftercare shall be submitted to EDDC for written approval prior to works commencing on site.

Reasons: To comply with the arboricultural and landscape requirements of Policy DES8 and to ensure that trees and landscape amenity are not harmed or lost during any stage of this development.

3.5.2013 Amended condition following original comments:

Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development or demolition shall start on site until an Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural completion statement, the contents of which are to be agreed at pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development. Within this report the method of construction for the pipeline through Ashley Wood is to be confirmed and it is to be demonstrated that the trees will not be adversely affected by its installation.

County Highways The County Highway Authority requires more Development Liaison Officer information on numbers and specification (width length, trailer, articulated etc) of vehicles expected in order to determine if a wider and/or longer passing space is required at the access to the public highway. Also confirmation is required that only the northern access onto the B3078 is to be to be used and no other. A numbered plan will be required of any such an improvement.

Further comments received 19.4.13 I refer to additional information relating to the access arrangements received on 18/4/13.

The County Highway Authority has had discussions with the agent and received further operational information in writing dated 18/4/13. This concurs with the suggestion of widening the hard area of the entrance of the Ashton Farmhouse track onto the B3078 as much as can be done without disturbing the hedges. This is in order to assist HGV's, tractors and trailers to pass without reversing onto or obstructing the highway. Provided this can be secured by condition then the County Highway Authority has no objections.

Environment Agency We have no objection to the proposed development subject to the following informatives being included in any planning permission granted. Environmental Permitting Regulations From the details submitted it is difficult to ascertain whether or not the proposal will need an Environmental Permit or Exemption. INFORMATIVE This development may require a Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 from the Environment Agency. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency Environment Management team on 01258 483307 to discuss the issues likely to be raised. NOTE TO APPLICANT The following link gives further detail of the T24 exemption:http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/116287.asp x If the conditions relating to this are met the applicants will not be required to apply for a Permit. Key conditions of T24 are: - Biogas must be collected and then burnt to produce energy. - The biogas burner on the AD plant must have a net rated thermal input of less than 0.4 MW - Waste must remain in digester for a minimum of 28 days. - The waste types permitted are plant tissue waste, FYM and slurry and fully biodegradable animal bedding. If the above conditions cannot be fully met the applicants will need to apply for a Environmental Permit. The following link gives further detail of the environmental permit reference SR2012 No10:

http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/145277.asp x Slurry Storage Construction INFORMATIVE All new, substantially enlarged or re-constructed slurry lagoons must comply with the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil ) (England) Regulations 2010. To comply, it has to be built in accordance with British Standards set out in CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) Report 126. Pollution Prevention During Construction INFORMATIVE Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to minimise the risks of pollution from the development. Such safeguards should cover: - the use of plant and machinery - oils/chemicals and materials - the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles - the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds - the control and removal of spoil and wastes. The applicant should refer to the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines at: http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx. INFORMATIVE You must notify the Environment Agency in writing at least 14 days before a new structure is first used. The appropriate forms are available at: http://publications.environment- agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0810BSXI-e-e.pdf NOTES TO APPLICANT Waste Management If any waste is to be used onsite, the applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate waste exemption or permit from us. We are unable to specify what exactly would be required if anything, due to the limited amount of information provided. If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Management team at the Blanford Office on 01258 483307 or refer to guidance on our website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste In England, it is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000.The

level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding VAT. You must still comply with the duty of care for waste. Because you will need to record all waste movements in one document, having a SWMP will help you to ensure you comply with the duty of care. Further information can be found at http://www.netregs.co.uk

EDDC Public Health - I have viewed the documentation in relation to the Housing And Pollution above application, in particular the noise impact assessment.

The report indicates the installation will not cause a noise nuisance to the nearby domestic premises. Therefore I recommend a condition along the lines of "The anaerobic digestion unit and related CHP units must be installed, and the noise mitigated, in accordance with the Noise Impact Assessment of Alan Saunders Associates Ref: AS6998.121205.L1"

Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

This application is to construct an Anaerobic Digestor (AD) system within a concrete based compound, 2 x concrete feed storage clamps and concrete apron base adjacent to the AD system (to allow vehicles access to the clamps to move the feed). A covered digestate lagoon is also proposed approx. 620m to the north east to the north of Ashton Wood, which will be linked to the proposed AD.

The lagoon will also be linked to the AD approved at Gaunts House (under planning permission 3/12/0838). The pipeline linking it to the AD system will be routed through Ashton Wood. An access track is also proposed to serve the site, which would link to the existing track that joins the Cranborne Road.

The site is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is in a Groundwater Protection Zone. The AD system is to be sited in a small conifer wood on sloping ground to the north of the existing access track that runs to the north of Ashton Farm and Ashton Lodge.

The land rises to the north east and there is a field (pasture) to the north east of the site for the AD system. The 2 concrete clamps and apron will be sited in the southern part of this field. The pipe line would traverse this field and run to the north east to Ashton Wood, and then through this wood to a field where the digestate lagoon is proposed.

The proposal and its background

The Gaunts Estate intends to meet most of its power and heating needs from renewable energy provided by AD systems, whilst reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Initially a large AD system was proposed adjacent to the Cranborne

Road to the north east of Hinton Parva. However this was discounted following negative feedback on the grounds of visual impact and traffic generation from district and county council officers during pre-application discussions.

To overcome these issues, the applicant has pursued a strategy to locate 5 separate AD systems around the estate, in order to minimise the visual impact as smaller developments may be more easily hidden in the landscape and attract less traffic movements that a single large development.

The current proposal is one of five projects on five separate sites on the estate, of which 3 remain to be submitted as planning applications in the future.

The AD system consists of four shipping containers positioned on railway sleepers on a concrete base, which will be sited in a small area of conifer woodland on a slope adjacent to agricultural land. The concrete base is to be cut into the slope as shown on the cross-sectional drawing (A-A), and there will be a retaining wall.

Three of the containers will be sited in a row with another container placed on top of the end container. The containers will be 2.7m tall (to include the sleepers), with the twin unit being 5.2m tall. The containers are 12.1m long x 2.4m wide. A ‘reception tank’ to take the feed to be processed will be sited adjacent to the twin containers, and a stainless steel flue will project from the central container. Two buffer tanks will be situated within the concrete base to the west of the containers.

The AD system is to provide heat and electricity to the properties of the Gaunts Estate on Ashton Hill. These include Ashton Farmhouse, Ashton Lodge and other smaller buildings. These buildings are currently heated by oil.

The AD system will be fed with manure, silage, crop waste and slurry from the estate’s farms. No feed will come from elsewhere.

Anaerobic digestion and power generation

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process in which naturally occurring bacteria are used to break down biological matter in a controlled environment, making biogas and digestate (solid and liquid residue).

The biogas produced is burnt to provide electricity and heat, and the system proposed (Combined Heat and power – CHP) will generate heat and electricity which will be used for Gaunts House and its outbuildings. Any surplus would be exported to the National Grid.

The digestate is a valuable fertiliser which can replace carbon-intensive artificial fertilisers. This is to be stored in the digestate lagoon beyond Ashton Wood, and spread on the estate’s land.

The two areas marked as ‘clamps’ on the site layout plan are to be concrete holding areas for the storage of silage and feedstock awaiting input into the AD system.

Site context

The site is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Green Belt (GB). The nearest dwelling is Ashton Court, which is some 80m from the south boundary of the application site. There are also dwellings at The Studio and Joyces Studio further to the south west and Ashton Lodge further to the south.

The site has conifer trees on its south, north west and east boundaries and ground levels fall from north east to south west, which may be seen from the cross-sectional drawing. Ashton Wood is at a higher level than the application site as is the area for the concrete clamps.

Main impacts

The main impacts will be on the Green Belt, AONB and nearby dwellings. Other impacts are on biodiversity, highway safety and trees.

Planning policy

Un- saved Policy CSIDE1 and Policy DES8 (to be replaced by Policy HE2 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy) of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 and Policies HE2, HE3 and PC3 of the emerging Core Strategy (CS) are relevant.

As a policy that is not to be replaced or saved, Policy CSIDE1 does not attract as much weight as the others. Policy DES8 carries significant weight as it is to be replaced in the CS, as do the CS policies given that this plan is at an advanced stage of preparation.

The policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also applicable, in particular Section 9 (development in Green Belts), Section 10 (renewable and low carbon energy), and Section 11 (conserving and enhancing the natural environment).

It is considered that the proposal represents a scheme for renewable energy and farm diversification.

Impact on the Green Belt

The government recognises that new buildings to house AD systems are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, and this is stated in Statutory Instrument No. 748: The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2012.

It is considered the proposal is an appropriate use in the Green Belt as it involves agriculture. However, it is inappropriate development as it is to site containers and construct slurry storage enclosures, is not for the erection of an agricultural building, and not in any of the categories of development set out in the NPPF that are stated as being appropriate. Therefore the proposed development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances.

This view was taken for the scheme approved at Gaunts House.

Very special circumstances

Paragraph 91 of the NPPF advises that when located in the GB, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development, and in these cases, developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if these projects are to go ahead. Very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.

The proposal will re-use farm waste in a sustainable way, and will reduce waste and produce energy whilst reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The digestate produced will provide fertiliser for the estate and would be used instead of artificial fertilisers (which are carbon intensive to produce). This would have an environmental benefit for the soils and groundwater and is a natural way to enrich the soil.

If the AD unit was to be housed in a building, it would be appropriate development in the Green Belt, and provided the impact of such a building was acceptable, the proposal would be acceptable in planning policy terms.

The proposed containers and any building of a suitable size to house them would have a similar impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and this is considered to be a factor that should be considered within the very special circumstances analysis.

The proposal can be viewed as an agricultural project that produces renewable energy and fertiliser. This energy is to be used to reduce the carbon emissions of Gaunts House and its surrounding buildings with the aim that the carbon emissions are zero.

The applicant’s agent estimates that the AD system will save 284 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide being emitted per year, which would arise from the current heating and electricity demands of the estate. Predicted electricity generation will be 394,200 kWh per year with 306,600 kWh of heat generation per year. This will be enough to represent 75% of the heating demand of the estate’s Ashton Hill buildings.

The UK is legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under The Climate Change Act 2008, and the proposal would, in conjunction with other renewable energy projects, contribute to this aim.

The National Waste Policy (NWP) provides a hierarchy of waste reduction, which starts with waste prevention, followed by waste re-use, recycling and energy recovery lower down and waste disposal at the bottom. The proposal therefore sits within the more favourable measures for waste disposal in the hierarchy.

The NWP also states that the government wishes to encourage local authorities and businesses to consider using AD.

Dorset currently has a very small percentage of its energy produced from renewable sources, and is one of the poorest performing counties in this respect. The proposal would contribute to this.

The NPPF states that one of the Core Planning Principles is the encouragement of the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy), and this will support the transition to a low-carbon future in a changing climate.

The above factors are together considered to represent the very special circumstances required to outweigh the harm of the proposal that results from the inappropriateness of the development. The proposal complies with the policy in the NPPF accordingly.

Impact on the AONB

The site is on a hillside and the containers and ancillary development would be screened by the site being cut into the hillside, and the conifer trees that are to be retained. The site for the containers and concrete base will be excavated by up to 2.8m to allow the containers and ancillary equipment to sit in a recess in the ground to reduce their visual impact. This will also be the case for the concrete clamps, and here ground levels are to be lowered by up to 4.2m.

There is also existing woodland to the south. New tree planting in 2 belts is proposed in the field to the north west of the site for the concrete clamps, and this will provide additional screening to add to that provided by the hedge than runs to the east. The planting immediately to the west of the AD site is to be reinforced which will provide further screening.

Given this screening and cutting the sites for the containers and clamps into the hillside, the proposal would not be prominent in the landscape.

No adverse impact on the AONB is expected or adverse impact on the visual amenities of the Green Belt, and the proposal accords with the NPPF in terms of these issues.

The proposal is required for farm diversification and cannot be accommodated in an existing building, and would not harm the visual amenities of the countryside. Therefore it accords with Policy CSIDE1 of the EDLP, despite a small amount of weight being attached to this policy given it is not to be saved in the development plan.

Impact on nearby dwellings

The application site is not immediately adjacent to dwellings. The nearest is Ashton Farm to the south west, which is in the control of the applicant. The others are further to the south.

The Council’s Public Health Officer has looked at the noise impact assessment submitted and advises that a condition be imposed to require the AD and CHP units to be installed in accordance with the Alan Saunders Associates Noise Impact Assessment ref: AS6998.121205.L1. This should ensure that the amenities of the closest dwellings are not adversely affected by the proposal.

Impact on biodiversity

A bat and biodiversity survey accompanies the application, and this confirms that no evidence of any protected species was found. However, there are bat roosts on the Gaunts Estate in close proximity to the application site. In this respect it is advised that no lighting shall be permitted near the hedgerows as these are used by bats to navigate, and only essential lighting is used around the silage clamps.

A condition is suggested to require details of any external lighting to be submitted to and approved by the Council prior to installation.

This would ensure the proposal did not adversely impact on bats.

The pipeline to link the AD system to the slurry lagoon to the north of Ashton Wood will run through Ashton Wood which is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. Dorset Wildlife Trust was consulted on the application but no response was received.

A condition is suggested to require details of how this pipeline is to be laid, and these should be submitted and approved by the Council before work to lay the pipeline through the wood is started. This will ensure minimum disturbance to the woodland.

Impact on highway safety

The proposal will be accessed via the existing unmade track to the south that links Ashton farm to the Cranborne Road.

The material is to be fed into the AD unit by vehicles predominately using existing and proposed farm tracks within the estate, and avoiding the public road network. It is expected that approx. 90% of these vehicle movements to be via internal tracks.

Traffic movements are likely to be focussed around a few weeks of the harvest, with crop cut-offs and silage being brought in. Manure will be brought in more regularly (once every 5 to 6 months) by tractor from Hinton Parva dairy which will involve use of a short section of the Cranborne Road. However this would be the case regardless of the proposal.

The operation of the AD unit will require daily access which is likely to necessitate a tractor coming on the site, which will use estate tracks.

Dorset County Council’s Transportation Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal, and advises that a condition be imposed to widen the first 50m of the access track onto the Cranborne Road.

Impact on trees

There are no protected trees at the site. However as the existing trees are important to screen the development, the Council’s Tree Officer has advised that tree protection details are submitted and approved by condition.

Conclusion

The application site is considered to be appropriate for the proposal and no significant impact on the Green Belt and AONB is expected. It is considered that very special circumstances have been demonstrated to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt from the inappropriateness of the development, and the proposal will deliver much needed renewable energy whilst producing fertiliser for the estate. The proposal complies with planning policy and contributes to the government’s renewable energy program and waste reduction strategy.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

Ecofirst Drawing No. 889: Site Location Blue Line received 28 January 2013

R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 13.02.2: Proposed Site layout plan dated 23.1.2013

R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 13.02.3: Proposed Plans and Elevations dated 23.1.2013

R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 13.02.4: Proposed Plan _ Elevations of Lagoon dated 23.1.2013

R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 13.02.5: Site Location Plan dated 23.1.2013

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

3 The containers, reception tank and digestate buffer tanks hereby approved shall be painted dark green (or any other colour that may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) before they are brought onto the site, and shall remain this colour unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development on the landscape.

4 The development hereby approved shall be operated in accordance with the Noise Impact Assessment ref: AS56998.121205.L1 by Alan Saunders Associates Acoustics dated 6.12.2013.

Reason: To minimise noise from the operation of the Anaerobic Digester and Combined Heat and power engine units being experienced by dwellings in the vicinity of the site.

5 Notwithstanding the planting details shown on the approved Site Layout Plan, before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS5837:2012 immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to minimise the impact on the landscape.

6 The Anaerobic Digestion facility hereby approved shall only be fed with manure (not human excrement); feedstuffs and any other materials that have been produced or grown on the Gaunts Estate, and shall not be fed with materials imported from elsewhere.

Reason: To minimise vehicular traffic on the local road network and in the interests of sustainabilty.

7 There shall be no external lighting of the development hereby permitted unless details of it have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved any external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and remain as such unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure bats are not adversely affected and in the interests of the tranquility of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

8 Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development or demolition shall start on site until an Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural completion statement, the contents of which are to be agreed at pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development. Within this report the method of construction for the pipeline

through Ashley Wood is to be confirmed and it is to be demonstrated that the trees will not be adversely affected by its installation.

Reason: To protect trees during construction.

9 Before the development commences a scheme showing precise details of a widening within the first 50 metres of the existing access to the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall require approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be constructed before the approved use is commenced.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Informatives:

1 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies HE2 and HE3 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy Pre-Submission Consultation 5.11.2012 to 21.12.2012 in the determination of the application.

In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application:

• the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, • The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer.

3 This development may require a Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 from the Environment Agency. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency Environment Management team on 01258 483307 to discuss the issues likely to be raised.

The following link gives further detail of the T24 exemption: http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/116287.aspx

If the conditions relating to this are met the applicants will not be required to apply for a Permit. Key conditions of T24 are: - Biogas must be collected and then burnt to produce energy. - The biogas burner on the AD plant must have a net rated thermal input of less than 0.4 MW

- Waste must remain in digester for a minimum of 28 days. - The waste types permitted are plant tissue waste, FYM and slurry and fully biodegradable animal bedding.

If the above conditions cannot be fully met the applicants will need to apply for a Environmental Permit. The following link gives further detail of the environmental permit reference SR2012 No10: http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/145277.aspx

4 All new, substantially enlarged or re-constructed slurry lagoons must comply with the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil ) (England) Regulations 2010. To comply, it has to be built in accordance with British Standards set out in CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) Report 126.

5 Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to minimise the risks of pollution from the development. Such safeguards should cover: - the use of plant and machinery - oils/chemicals and materials - the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles - the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds - the control and removal of spoil and wastes. The applicant should refer to the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx.

You must notify the Environment Agency in writing at least 14 days before a new structure is first used. The appropriate forms are available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0810BSXI-e-e.pdf

Further guidance can be found at www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/118798.aspx where fact sheets for a range of different slurry storage options are available.

6 If any waste is to be used onsite, the appropriate waste exemption or permit will be required from the Environment Agency (EA). However, the EA is unable to specify what exactly would be required if anything, due to the limited amount of information provided.

If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility.

The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Management team at the Blandford Office on 01258 483307 or refer to guidance on our website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste

In England, it is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000.The level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost,

excluding VAT. You must still comply with the duty of care for waste. Because you will need to record all waste movements in one document, having a SWMP will help you to ensure you comply with the duty of care. Further information can be found at http://www.netregs.co.uk

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/13/0093/FUL

Proposal: Relocate vehicle access track (Retrospective)

Site Address: Lower Farm, Gussage St Michael, Wimborne, for Mr R Friend

Constraints Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Bournemouth International Airport Groundwater Source Protection Zone Groundwater Source Protection Zone NATS Technical Sites Site Notice exp: 8 March 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 28 February 2013

Gussage St Michael Parish Object - Loss of amenity to neighbours, no proven Meeting Comments: need for track to be relocated here.

The PC recognise the importance of Mr Friend being able to access the farm buildings at Lower Farm from Greystones, but did not consider that it was necessary to relocate the track so close to Field View.

The PC felt that the relocated track was so close to Field View as to have a significantly detrimental impact on the residents and a consequent loss of their amenity, particularly if used by heavy farm traffic.

There was concern over whether the new track would become the main entrance to the farm. The written submission states that it would: 'take the main agricultural access away from the centre of the village'. This implies that the new track would be the main farm entrance, therefore carrying heavy agricultural traffic, with loss of amenity to the Field View residents as mentioned above.

The PC does not see a need for a new track.

Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION Development Liaison Officer to the proposal.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs Hawkins Object Fieldview, Gussage St 1. It is a new development that fulfils a function Michael that was already met by an existing track. (No proof has been provided to prove the contrary in terms of legal documents). The Council and their Planning Department who have checked their plans and photographs back to at least 1993 and confirmed that no disused track exists. 2. The existing track can be dated back to at least 1993 and exits to the NE in the centre of the farm complex which straddles both sides of the metal road that forms part of the public highway albeit a dead end road leading to the farm, hence only farm traffic use it. 3. Access to the farm was already met by two entrances (the old track and the public highway). 4. There appeared to be no need for any track until Mr R Friends son moved into Greystones recently. The old track has been perfectly adequate for the farmers needs for at least the last ten years to our knowledge. 5. There is no proven agricultural need for the new track as opposed to the existing track. At the local Parish Council meeting (21/2/13) the only agricultural need put forward by Mr Friend was the need for his son to get to work. Mr Nigel Friend is the livestock manager for some 200 head of cattle. As we have proved, the ‘new' track takes approx. 20 seconds off of the trip from one side of the farm to the other. 6. The only difference that the new track offers is that it is in a straight line and does not exit by one of the co owner's house. 7. It is unacceptably intrusive on our property (Fieldview) in terms of a total lack of privacy, noise and light pollution that did not exist before. The existing track is some 27.5 metres from our house; the new track is only 2 metres away from our boundary. 8. There is not a problem with regards to traffic in the village and the new track is not intended to access the public highway (according to the plan submitted) and therefore only maintains the status quo as served by the old track. The farm has little, if any, holdings to the north of the road running through the village. At the meeting of the Parish Council (21/2/13), Mr Friend confirmed that this new track was not intended to

access the public road. 9. The village is in an area of ONB as such this track is closer to the centre of the village and clearly visible from the centre of the village across the water meadow especially since the destruction of the hedging along the southern edge of the meadow.

Officers Report:

This application comes to committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval and the Parish Council has objected. There has also been an objection from the occupants of the dwelling at Fieldview.

The proposal is to retain a vehicular access track that has been constructed across agricultural land from the rear of the dwelling at Greystones to the most westerly farm buildings at Lower Farm.

This has been formed without planning permission and runs to the south of the existing track that links the farm with Greystones. It is stated that the existing track is to be removed.

Greystones has a private vehicular access onto the lane and this dwelling is owned by the applicant.

The new track is 65m long and 3.5m wide. The old track is 120m long and 3.5m wide.

The new track runs close to the dwelling at Fieldview and is within 2.5m of this property’s rear boundary. The existing track is some 17m from this boundary.

The site is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and outside the Village Infilling Envelope of Gussage St Michael. It lies on a hillside that slopes down to the south towards the road that runs through the village, and is visible from this road.

The new track has been constructed using crushed brick rubble approximately 18 inches deep with a layer of ash on top and is suitable for use by heavy agricultural vehicles.

Need for the new track

It is stated in the Design and Access Statement that the main purpose of the track is to provide a suitable access track that will allow farm traffic to enter Lower Farm directly rather than having to go through the village, and that the existing visibility splay at Greystones is adequate to serve it.

In contrast, the applicant’s agent has since confirmed that the main purpose of the access track is to provide a direct link between the property Greystones and Lower Farm. This will enable Nigel Friend to be readily available at all times for stock management purposes, and gives Mr Friend a direct link to the farm and can be the difference between life or death where seriously ill or newly born calves are involved.

The agent has also clarified that when submitting the initial application, it was considered that the new track could provide an alternative access for the farm if required.

However the applicant’s agent has stated that the width restriction at the junction between the public highway and the driveway of Greystones is too tight to be utilised by anything larger than a single car, and for this reason it would be impossible to utilise this access as a main farm access without substantial alterations to the access (which he considers would require a planning consent).

The agent has confirmed that the applicant is willing to accept a condition imposed on any planning permission to restrict the use of the driveway to use in connection with Greystones. This would mean that no vehicles could utilise it to access Lower Farm, unless they were coming from Greystones.

The agent states that the majority of farm traffic enters the village from the higher road running to the south, rather than off the lower road running through Cashmoor towards the A354. For this reason the majority of traffic turns left out of the farm entrance rather than right, and as a result this means the more suitable route for general farm traffic would be the existing main farm track, rather than the proposed new access.

Main issues

The main issues are considered to be the impact of the new track on the landscape, impact on highway safety and impact on the amenity of the occupants of the dwelling known as Fieldview.

Impact of the track on the landscape

The track is visible in the landscape and has some impact on the AONB accordingly. Since the Planning Officer’s site visit, a post and wire fence has been erected either side of the track. This is approximately 1m high and is permitted development that does not require planning permission.

The impact on the AONB is not considered to be significant as the track is constructed of appropriate materials for its agricultural function and is relatively short. The actual visual impact is therefore limited and it is considered that only a small amount of weight can be attached to this impact.

Impact on highway safety

The new access is intended to provide an improved way for the occupant of Greystones (Mr N Friend, an agricultural worker at Lower Farm) to travel to his place of work at Lower Farm.

Given the physical restrictions of the existing access from Greystones onto the lane from Cashmoor, it is considered that this would not be used by large vehicles attending the farm, and this has been confirmed by the applicant’s agent.

On this basis Dorset County Council Highways have not objected to the application and it is considered acceptable in terms of its likely impact on highway safety.

The lane outside Greystones is a classified road (C103) and therefore any new access would require planning permission. However any modification to the existing access could allow use by heavy goods vehicles which would could have an adverse impact on highway safety. Therefore it is considered necessary to impose a condition to prevent any modification to the existing access at Greystones. This would also prevent large vehicles disturbing the occupants of Fieldview.

Impact on the amenity of the occupants of the dwelling known as Fieldview

The new access track comes within approximately 2.5m of the side rear boundary of Fieldview at its closest point. The existing access is some 17m away from the same point. Given the closer proximity of the new track to Fieldview (when compared with the existing), it is reasonable to conclude that vehicles using the new track would have a greater impact on the occupants of this property than those using the old track.

Fieldview backs onto agricultural land that is farmed by Lower Farm, and this dwelling was built in the full knowledge of this situation, with any occupants having to accept this relationship. It is however appreciated that the new access is closer to Fieldview than the existing access.

The applicant’s agent has confirmed that on average there are 4 farm vehicle movements per day using the new track. These comprise a tractor and 4x4 vehicle and some are made outside normal working hours. There are also pedestrian movements.

Concerns have been raised by the occupants of Fieldview on the grounds of noise and overlooking.

It is considered that there is and is likely to be an impact on the occupants of Fieldview from the movement of vehicles in close proximity to the dwelling and its curtilage at Fieldview. However, given the low number of vehicle movements occurring on the track as confirmed by the applicant’s agent, the impact from noise and general disturbance from vehicles passing close to Fieldview is not significant and considerable weight cannot be attached to this impact.

There is also an element of overlooking of Fieldview from occupants of vehicles using the access. However, given the low vehicle movements, and the fleeting nature of any overlooking, this impact cannot be afforded great weight in the planning assessment.

The planning judgement for the proposal favours approval given the above considerations. However it is advised that a condition is necessary to require suitable indigenous planting adjacent to the access where it comes close to the boundaries with Fieldview in order to provide a degree of visual screening and reduce loss of privacy.

This can be achieved by the landscaping scheme that has been submitted which shows an area of hazel planting adjacent to the side (north east) boundary of Fieldview and also to the south west of a 73m section of the track towards the main farm. This scheme has been agreed by the Council’s Design and Conservation officer who is also qualified in landscape matters.

It is also advised that a condition is imposed to prevent use of the access track by heavy goods vehicles and vehicles not associated with Greystones, in the interests of the amenity of the occupants of Fieldview.

Conclusion

Given the above conditions, it is considered that the proposal respects unsaved Policy CSIDE1, and saved Policies DES2 and DES8 of the east Dorset Local Plan 2002, Policies HE2 and HE3 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy and the policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

Promap Location Plan

Promap Site Plan

Symonds and Sampson Drawing No. 3374/01:Old and New Access tracks dated 17.1.2013

Symonds and Sampson Drawing No.3374/01: Landscaping Plan dated 19.4.2013

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

2 Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), or any further re-enactment or revision, there shall be no modifications to the existing vehicular access at Greystones which provides access onto the lane between Cashmoor and Gussage St Michael.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and to prevent large vehicles using the access which would cause disturbance to the occupants of the adjacent dwelling at Fieldview.

3 Prior to 1st October 2013, the planting shown on the approved Landscaping Plan (Symonds and Sampson Drawing No.3374/01 dated 19.4.2013) shall be carried out in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground

preparation, staking, etc., in BS5837:2012. The planting shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To provide screening of the access track from the rear of the dwelling known as Fieldview in the interests of the privacy of the occupants of this property.

Informatives:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; • offering a pre-application advice service, and • as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application:

• the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, • The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

2 As a retrospective application, this permission is granted in accordance with Section 63 (2) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/13/0099/FUL

Proposal: Sever land and erect bungalow with parking as amended by plans rec'd 5.4.13 to Show Elevations and Revision to Kitchen Window on North Elevation. Site Address: 22 Highmoor Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Regal Homes Ltd Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Groundwater Source Protection Zone Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 31 March 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 25 March 2013

Corfe Mullen Parish Object Council Comments: The proposal will result in a contrived and cramped dwelling which will still overlook properties in East Way. Contrary to DES8

Consultee Responses: Natural England The application site lies in the vicinity (within 5 km and beyond 400m) of heathlands that are notified as SSSIs for the special interest of their heathland habitats and associated plant and animal species. The SSSIs are part of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland bird species and are also part of a Ramsar site on account of rare or vulnerable heathland wetlands and associated rare wetland species. They are additionally part of the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland and associated habitats and some individual species. The proximity of the European sites (SPA and SAC) raises considerations on the requirements of the Habitats Directive 1992 for these sites to be maintained or, where necessary, restored at a favourable conservation status (Article 3 (1)). Determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat and Species Regulations 20101, in particular Regulations 61 and 62; and legislative and policy considerations on the protection, conservation and enhancement of the interest features of the SSSI and Ramsar site. There is considerable documented information showing that urban development in the area around lowland heathland has an adverse effect on the quality of heathland interest features underlying the designation of the European sites, Ramsar site and SSSIs. Key references can be found at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_west/ ourwork/heathlands/default.aspx In our view the proposal is not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of the European sites. Owing to the proximity of the proposal to the European sites, Natural England is of the opinion that the additional residential development, in combination with other dwellings proposed near to the European sites, would be likely to have a significant effect on the heathland interest features of these sites in the context of Regulation 61. Before granting planning permission the competent authority should undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the development on the European sites in light of their conservation objectives. The conservation objectives

are to maintain and, where not in favourable condition, to restore, the heathland and other habitat and species interest features. Whilst on its own the development may not adversely affect the integrity of the European sites, in combination with other dwellings proposed near to the European sites, the development without mitigation would be likely to contribute to a deterioration of the quality of lowland heathland and its interest features. Natural England notes the applicant's commitment to make an appropriate developer contribution towards the Dorset Heathlands Supplementary Planning Document as a means to addressing an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. The applicant will need to contribute towards this through a unilateral undertaking. It would be possible to mitigate the effects through the types of measures set out in the Dorset Heathlands SPD. The measures will be subject to monitoring and evaluation, and modification where necessary to ensure that as a whole they deliver effective mitigation across the European sites. On this basis Natural England considers that implementation of the SPD can allow the Competent Authorities in South East Dorset to conclude no adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites from the envisaged amount of housing development in the area between 400m and 5km from these sites in the period to the end of 20142. Natural England objects to this application proposal unless the applicant contributes to the mitigation set out in the SPD in accordance with the levels and procedures for this contribution. This advice on mitigation also applies in meeting legislative and policy considerations on the protection, conservation and enhancement of the heathland SSSIs and Ramsar site. Issues concerning other designated sites This application is in close proximity to Corfe Mullen Pastures SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. Issues concerning protected species Natural England advises the proposals as presented

have the potential to affect species protected under European or UK legislation. Natural England has now adopted national standing advice for protected species. As standing advice, it is a material consideration in the determination of the proposed development in this application in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation and should therefore be fully considered before a formal decision on the planning application is made. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningtra nsportlocalgov/spatialplanning/standingadvice/default. aspx. If the Council is minded to grant planning permission in a manner contrary to Natural England's advice, the procedures set out in S.28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act would apply.

EDDC Tree Section The footprint of the proposed dwelling is similar to those in previous planning applications. No arboricultural objections were raised with any of the previous schemes and I therefore have no objections with this latest scheme. Therefore, should you be minded to approve this application please include a condition.

County Highways No objection Development Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs M J Parker 21 Object Highmoor Road, Corfe The access, although slightly wider, is still one drive Mullen entrance right on the bend of the road for both properties. As No.22 has a minimum of 3 vehicles in the drive and usually one on the road, with the new property using the same drive, cars would be left on this narrow road permanently - making it even more dangerous for school traffic as Rushcombe infants school is at the end of this road.

J G M Glover Taba Taba, Object Dennis Road My rear garden will be overlooked, the interior of my upstairs bedrooms will be visible from the property, the amount of light entering my house and garden will be reduced and there will be an increase in the level of noise.

Further letter received 24.4.13 Having reviewed the revised plans for the application at the above address, I object to the development.

My rear garden will be overlooked, the amount of light entering my house and garden will be reduced and there will be an increase in the level of noise. The development is far too close to the protected trees at the bottom of my garden.

Mr Ivor Seager 20 Highmoor I object to this application on the grouds that the new Road, Corfe Mullen property will look directly into my bedroon, thus reducing my privacy. There is also the matter of the increased traffic and on road parking, for the use of the same entrance to the proposed new property. Also there are mature trees sourrounding the property that would have to be removed, thus reducing privacy to our and neighbouring gardens.

Pauline James 1A East Object Way, Corfe Mullen Because my garden is lower I will still be overlooked and my privacy hindered both whilst in my house and in my garden. My garden often gets flooded from the Highmoor Road property due to the difference in height. I can only see this problem getting worse with putting a property on it. The tree that has the protection order on it would have its roots damaged during any proposed build. At the time of writing this letter the bark on the trees separating our two proeprties has been stripped which is causing them to die. In conclusion, the plot is just not big enough.

Further letter received 24.4.13 With reference to the amended plans dated 5 April 2013, my previous comments remain valid and unanswered. Furthermore since applying for permission to build this bungalow the applicant has carried out clearance work by stripping the bark from most of the conifer trees on the border between our properties, this has resulted in my property being overlooked by not only the applicant but also by his neighbour. I am concerned also, about the difference in ground levels, with the applicants being higher I frequently get excess levels of water in my garden. I still feel that I will have less natural light and suffer from higher levels of noise. I do not feel that the protected tree will be safe upon excavation for the foundations for the proposed property. In closing I feel that the property applied for will be far too close to the boundary.

Mr & Mrs M J Wigmore 19 We object on the grounds of it being a shared drive, Highmoor Road, Corfe which at present has at least three or more cars Mullen parked in the drive plus others on the road. The position for this property is on an already extremely bad, blind bend in Highmoor Road. We have to reverse out of our drive which is almost opposite number 22 and at present it can be hazardous and the thought of more cars can only be an accident waiting to happen.

Officers Report:

This application comes to committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval and the Parish Council has objected and there have also been 5 letters of objection from the occupants of nearby properties.

The proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a detached bungalow with 2 bedrooms. It will be of simple traditional design and incorporate a pitched and gabled roof with the ridge running the same way as the terraced houses adjacent to the site.

The ridge of the proposed dwelling will be 600mm below the eaves of the house at No.22, and its gable end will face the rear boundaries of 1A East Way and Taba Taba in East Way.

Vehicular access is proposed via the existing access serving 22 onto Highmoor Road, with 2 on-site parking spaces for the new dwelling and a single parking space for No.22.

Planning history

The site has a history of planning applications for dwellings that have been refused. These have all been 2 storey houses and there have been 2 dismissed appeals.

The latest appeal at the site immediately precedes this current application and is the basis on which to assess the application. This appeal concerned a two storey detached house with lower ridge than No.22 and reduced bulk. At its closest point, this was approx. 2m further from the site’s boundary with 1A East Way and Taba Taba than the current proposal.

The Inspector identified the main issues as being the impact on the living conditions of adjoining residents to the north and east (with particular reference to visual impact), and the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Impact on the living conditions of adjoining residents to the north and east with particular reference to visual impact

It is to be noted that the dwellings at 1A East Way and Taba Taba are at an appreciably lower level than the application site and ground levels also fall across their rear gardens from west to east. There are conifer trees on the rear boundary of

1A East Way and these provide some screening of the dwelling at No.22, although there are glimpses through them as they have been pruned. The trees at the rear of Taba Taba are taller than these conifers, but do not offer effective screening from ground level as they have few branches near the ground and views into the application site from the rear garden of Taba Taba are readily available.

The Inspector considered that the proposed house would not have an overbearing visual impact from the rear facing windows in the dwellings at 1A East way and Taba Taba to the north, and nor would it lead to an unacceptable loss of daylight in terms of the BRE publication: Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight – A guide to good practice (P J Littlefair). However he judged that the house proposed would have an unduly dominating effect which would significantly reduce the enjoyment of the rear gardens of these dwellings. This was despite the boundary planting.

The dwelling now proposed is significantly lower and less bulky than the appeal dwelling, and it is considered that it would not give rise to an overbearing visual impact on the above mentioned properties. Therefore no adverse effects are expected on the rear gardens of these dwellings and the Inspector’s concerns are overcome in this respect.

The conifers on the rear boundary with 1A East Way appear to be in a poor state and the bark has been stripped from some of them. Given this state of affairs, it is considered reasonable to expect these trees to die or be removed by the applicant in the near future. As the trees provide a good level of screening, and there is poor screening at the rear of Taba Taba, a condition is suggested to require the erection of a 2m tall close boarded fence to be positioned along the whole of the rear boundaries of 1A East Way and Taba Taba. This is to be supplemented by planting next to it within the application site with native species that will eventually rise above the fence and provide screening up to 3m above ground level.

The proposed dwelling originally had a standard height window in its north elevation to serve a kitchen. Given the grounds levels and poor screening provided by the trees on the boundary with Taba Taba and 1A East Way, officers advised that this was deleted and replaced with a high level window. Amended plans were submitted to show this and a condition is required to ensure the sill of this window is at least 1.7m from floor level of the kitchen, which would avoid significant overlooking.

The other window in the north elevation serves a bedroom and is an oriel design. This will focus any views from it away from Taba Taba and 1 A East Way and into the garden of the new dwelling. This will be achieved by only glazing the north east side of this window.

The other windows at the new dwelling will face north west and south east and no adverse overlooking is expected from them given their relationship with adjacent dwellings and the intervening boundary treatment.

No adverse impact on the amenities of the occupants of the dwellings with a common boundary with the application site is foreseen, and the proposal accords with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan (EDLP), Policy HE2 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy and the policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

The proposed dwelling would lack its own road frontage and would differ from the prevailing pattern of development in the area. However, it would have little visual impact when seen from Highmoor Road and would not appear out of keeping given its subservient height and modest scale.

The plot would not be uncharacteristically small or result in a cramped form of development, and in this undulating area differences in level between adjacent dwellings are not unusual.

The design is appropriate and no adverse impact is expected for the street scene. The proposal would therefore respect the character and appearance of the immediate area and is compliant with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan, Policy HE2 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy and the policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact on highway safety

The proposal provides 2 parking spaces for the new dwelling and another for the existing, which would allow a modest manoeuvring area.

Dorset County Highways has not objected to this arrangement, and a previous Inspector was not convinced that the appeal proposal would result in an adverse impact on highway safety.

Therefore it is not considered that the proposal could be reasonably resisted on the basis of its impact on highway safety.

Impact on trees

The Council’s Tree Officer is satisfied that there will be no significant impact on protected trees at the site from the proposal or fencing on the boundary with 1A East Way and Taba Taba, and has raised no objection. He has advised a condition which has been imposed.

Impact on Dorset Heathlands

The site lies between 400m and 5km from several Sites of Special Scientific Interest of international importance (SSSIs). Therefore an appropriate assessment under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is required to be undertaken by the Council as ‘Competent Authority’ to determine whether the proposal, in combination with other plans and projects, will have an adverse impact on the SSSIs.

Natural England has advised that on a site such as the application site that lies between 400m and 5km from the SSSIs an appropriate assessment may reasonably conclude that there would not be an adverse cumulative impact on the integrity of the SSSIs.

This is on the basis of the adopted Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework which will provide mitigation against the impacts of new dwellings on the heathland. The Framework requires a financial contribution from the applicant to go towards funding the mitigation measures. Provided the applicant submits a Unilateral Obligation to pay the required contribution upon commencement of development, no objection would be raised with regard to the impact of the scheme on the SSSIs.

The applicant has submitted a Unilateral Planning Obligation, and the proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of its impact on protected heathlands and accords with Policy NCON4 of the EDLP, Policy ME2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy and paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

Impact on transport infrastructure

The site lies within the area covered by the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2. In this area, developments that generate additional vehicle trips are required to pay a sum to provide mitigation against the impact of increased vehicle trips.

The application includes a completed Unilateral Planning Obligation requiring the applicant to pay the sum for the dwellings that are proposed. The proposal will therefore be acceptable in terms of the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Supplementary Planning Guidance 2.

Flooding

The occupant of 1A East Way has stated her property has been flooded and this may be coming from the application site. The proposed dwelling is to have its surface water disposed of into a soakaway and there is no reason to believe that if done to satisfy the Building Regulations, this arrangement would exacerbate the situation.

Conclusion

The revised scheme is significantly different from the schemes dismissed at appeal and refused by the Council, and would have far less of an impact than these preceding schemes. The proposed bungalow is of small scale and would have a low impact on the adjacent dwellings and character and appearance of the area. It is therefore considered to address the Planning Inspector’s concerns and satisfy policy.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

Anders Roberts and Associates Drawing No. 8244/100: Site, Block and Location Plan dated October 2012

Anders Roberts and Associates Drawing No. 8244/101: Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations dated October 2012

Anders Roberts and Associates Drawing No. 8244/102: Street Scene / Site Section dated October 2012

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

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

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

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent amendment or re- enactment, there shall be no extensions to the side (north east) or rear (north west) of the dwelling without planning permission being granted nor any extensions at first floor level.

Reason: To allow the Local Planning Authority control over extensions to these elevations in the interests of the amenity of the occupants of adjacent dwellings in East Way and Highmoor Road, given the proximity of the dwelling to the site's boundaries and elevated position in relation to properties in East Way and Highmoor Road.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, the window serving a kitchen in the north (side) elevation shall be installed with its sills at or above 1700mm above the floor level of the room it serves, the one window shall have no glazing facing north west and no further windows shall be inserted in this elevation.

Reason: To preserve the privacy of occupants of the adjoining properties in East Way

6 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a 2m tall close- boarded fence shall be erected along the site’s boundary with 1A East Way and Taba Taba. This shall be constructed in accordance with an Arboricultural Method Statement to be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The fence shall then be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To preserve the privacy of the occupants of the properties at 1A East Way, Taba Taba and the new dwelling.

7 Before any works to construct the new dwelling begin, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. The scheme should include native planting adjacent to the boundary fence required in Condition 6, and this should have a maximum growth potential of approx. 3m. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS5837:2012 immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

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

8 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan prepared by A J Scott, dated the 21st February 2013. The protection of the trees shall be carried out in accordance with this report. 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 or excavations made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall not be discharged before an arboricultural supervision statement is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

Reason: To protect trees during development in the interests of visual amenity.

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the parking shown on Anders Roberts and Associates Drawing Number 8244/100 dated October 2012 has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Informatives:

1 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies HE2, ME2, KS11 and KS12 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy Pre-Submission Consultation 5.11.2012 to 21.12.2012 in the determination of the application.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/13/0154/HOU

Proposal: Erect first floor extension over existing garage to form two wet rooms and raise existing single storey rear extension. Erect two storey glazed bay on front elevation. Extend rear raised platform. As amended by plans rec'd 8/3/13 and 21/3/13 and 26/3/13 Site Address: 31 Golf Links Road, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mr & Mrs Paul and Nina Boyd Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Green Belt LP Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Open Space Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 27 March 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 21 March 2013

Ferndown Town Council Comments dated 15.3.13 No objection Comments: Comments dated 12.4.13 Object The Town Council had before them the amended plans which were received at the District Council on

21 March 2013, although we understand there have been further revised plans submitted since that date. The Council heard representations made by Mr G Downer of 29 Golf Links Road. Members were of the opinion that constant revisions of the plans confuse matters. In this case the plans of 21 March 2013 have overlooking issues which need to be addressed. The height of the revised plans need to be reduced in respect of the extension and the issues surrounding the bay window require resolution so that Mr Downer's concerns are met.

Comments dated 8.5.13 Thank you for your email in which you explain the sequence of events which resulted in some confusion with the plans which had been submitted for consideration by the Council. The matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Town Council Planning Committee and representations were made to the Committee by Mr & Mrs Boyd of 31 Golf Links Road and Mr G Downer of 29 Golf Links Road. The Committee decided that they would confirm their original decision namely that the matter should be decided by the East Dorset Planning Committee rather than one officer, given the disagreement between the applicant and the neighbour.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section Located within the applicant's curtilage and the neighbouring gardens are protected trees that make a positive contribution to the visual amenities of the locality.

Should planning permission be granted for this minor extension above the garage these trees would not be directly affected. However, there is the potential for damage to occur to their rooting environments by activities such as the storage and mixing of materials. Therefore, should you be minded to approve this application please include a condition.

EDDC Tree Section My comments remain unchanged from those provided on the 6th March 2013. Therefore, should you be minded to approve this application please ensure that the condition previously provided is imposed.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr G Downer 29 Golf Links We find this latest application at the above address to Road, Ferndown be acceptable.

However, after discussions with the owner/developer we do not feel that he intends to amend the height of the partly constructed building at the back of the property and abutting our boundary. When I suggested that a proposal is accepted or refused by EDDC he did not appear to consider the point. What concerns us is that if he carries on and finishes the addition as it is, it could be years, if at all, he is made to comply and reduce the height.

Further comments received 2.4.13: We are finding the above applications very confusing due to the fact that: 1. The owner/developer constructed the single storey extension above the rear of the garage to a height of 4m plus, under what he thought was permitted development. Your website advice allows 3.5m as it is only 1.2m from his boundary and ours. 2. Since then he has made several applications to you, the latest of which shows the height to be 2.5m, which is now displayed on your website. We also note that the front upstairs is being turned into a bay window which will look straight into our bedroom's French windows giving no privacy within the room.

Further comments received 9.4.13: Further to our last letter, the construction which has now been built without the benefit of any planning permission to date, is totally unacceptable and has come to overwhelm our garden and property. The structure of the whole, 4ft from our boundary has become over development on a large scale and, apart from anything else, is bound to create a drainage problem on our land and it is impossible to screen such a mass. We feel it essential that the project goes before Parish and District Committees, which would give us an opportunity to be represented. We do feel that there should be a duty of care towards our existing property as well as to the applicants.

Further letter received 18.4.13: I find it quite difficult how this matter can still be a Proposal, when we have already been over powered by the size and shape of the edifice for months, and the construction we have witnessed bears little relationship to any of the drawings we have seen to date. However, in reply to your letter of 11.4.13, our

previous written observations still stand, plus the following points: 1. Change to existing single storey rear extension. It is very clear from your Web Page that 3.5 metres is the maximum allowed under permitted development when the boundary is only 4ft away. In order for the applicant to achieve this would simply mean cutting away the plywood that he has formed into a parapet box. 2. The entire development, including the extension over garage is so large and close (all built without planning) that it obscures the sky from our sitting room windows. 3. Even the current drawings do not show what happens to the upstairs front window. If a bay window is intended it will look directly into our bedroom French windows allowing no privacy.

Mr P A Chapman 85 Golf I notice work has commenced and is well advanced, Links Road, Ferndown all without prior approval. A number of plans and revisions appear to have been submitted in an ad-hoc manner making if difficult to fully appreciate what the intended overall design will be. It appears the proposed re-development fails to improve the spatial relationship with neighbouring dwellings in this Special Character Area and could have an adverse impact, particularly on 29 Golf Links Road, contrary to Policy BUCON6 of the EDLP and SPGNo.27 New Road SCA, Development Criteria. The re-development, in my opinion, does not respect the surrounding context. The complex roof shape and the positioning on the building on the site give the appearance when viewed in the 'street scene' aspect as one sided and unbalanced. The design and layout could create conflict with adjacent properties with a possible adverse effect on the adjacent property of No.29 in terms of overlooking, loss of light and overshadowing, impacting on amenity previously enjoyed. I appreciate that homeowners are entitled to redevelop and improve their homes but it must accord with the planning process and adhere to the regulations and guidance that has been laid down by statute, and be sympathetic to adjoining neighbour concerns.

Officers Report:

This Application is brought to Committee as the Officer’s recommendation is contrary to the representation from the Town Council and in addition a request has been received from a Member to refer the Application to Committee.

Site Description 31 Golf Links Road is a detached dwelling of render under a concrete tiled roof. The building appears to date from the 1960’s and is of its period with a shallow two storey asymmetrical gable facing the highway with a first floor balcony and a southerly extension of the roof covering a balcony area. The main range runs across the site at the same two storey height with a large rear balcony. The site is within the urban area. The site is within an area TPO (HA/26) but no trees are near the house.

Proposal The proposal is to reconstruct the garage on the northern flank of the building with a study/utility/plant room/ vestibule on the ground floor with two en suites under a roof extension lit by roof lights. The enlarged garage will have a single storey rear projection with a parapet height of 3.6m clad in cedar. The fenestration and balcony at the rear will be reworked. At the front the existing first floor balcony will be enclosed in a two storey fully glazed balcony while the oversailed front first floor balcony will be enclosed by glazing. The existing front entrance will be enclosed by a single storey cedar clad box lobby. There will also be an extensive area of decking installed against the rear elevation. Work has commenced on site as the applicant initially considered part of the proposal did not require planning permission.

Planning Policy The principal considerations are the effect upon the street scene, the character of the surrounding area and the amenity of neighbours. The relevant policies are therefore DES8 of the Local Plan and emerging policy HE2 of the Core Policy. Paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework also states planning decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. The dwelling is not within the New Road Special Character Area.

Planning Considerations The changes to the rear elevation are relatively minor apart from the raised rear extension to the garage and the area of decking. The deck will be hidden from the neighbour to the north by the rearward projection of the extended and raised former garage. The decking will be adequately separated from the property to the south by dense boundary planting which will prevent any overlooking or nuisance. The proposal for the rearward extension of the garage has been viewed from the first floor rear window of No. 29. This extension will have a 3.6m parapet but will not have a significant effect upon the amenities of the neighbour given the boundary planting, the loggia in the neighbours garden and the separation from the boundary. The two storey extension facing No. 29 has a relatively low eaves height at 4.5m. This is considered to be betterment in terms of potential overlooking as the roof lights serving the en-suites would be over head height whilst the occupants could re-glaze the existing large sash window facing No. 29. A condition will be appended preventing any further openings being formed in this elevation at first floor level.

A representation has been received from the neighbour regarding the relationship between the two storey glazed front bay and the first floor French windows in the front elevation of No.29. This was viewed from the existing balcony on the front of No. 31 which is 16m away from the common boundary. The French casements at

No. 29 are a further 12m from the boundary, with an evergreen tree partly in the sight line and in that property’s ownership. It is considered that the glazing to glazing distance of 28m together with the oblique nature of the views from the first floor bay is sufficient to reduce any harm, notwithstanding that there is an existing balcony in this position. Any effect is not sufficient justification to require the side glazing facing No. 29 to be obscure glazed.

There are no nature interest implications as the works will not break into the existing roof space. There are protected trees within the curtilage of this property and No. 33 Golf Links Road. This Council’s Arboricultural Officer has suggested an arboricultural protection condition and this has been appended. The Applicant has furnished a list of materials for the finishes which is considered acceptable and makes a materials condition unnecessary.

The proposal is an innovative scheme to freshen the appearance of this unremarkable dwelling which is located in a road of varying architectural styles. For the above reasons the proposal accords with Policy DES8 and emerging Policy HE2 and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework, leading to this recommendation.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A11,12,13,14 and 17. AO1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,15 and16.

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

2 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no fenestration or door shall be installed in the first floor of the northern elevation of the extension hereby permitted without express planning permission.

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

3 Throughout the duration of development the following activities shall not take place within an 8 metre radius of the trunk of any of the protected trees located within the curtilages of 29, 31 and 33 Golf Links Road without written permission from the Council.

' Storage of building materials ' Manoeuvring or storage of plant machinery ' Mixing of cement ' Excavations (including soakaways) ' Raising or lowering of ground levels ' Fires

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

Informatives:

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

2 This application has been appraised against the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Guidance.

3 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; Offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application: The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/13/0166/COU

Proposal: Use of garden room as a treatment room for physiotherapy/acupuncture/massage (retrospective)

Site Address: 38 Hillside Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr & Mrs L Fisher

Constraints Groundwater Source Protection Zone Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 18 April 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 1 April 2013

Corfe Mullen Parish No objection Council Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways No objection Development Liaison Officer

EDDC Public Health - I cannot see this application causing any statutory Housing And Pollution nuisances issues (noise, odour) and therefore have no comment to make.

Neighbour Comments:

MS J Heczko & Mr H Objection from 36 Hillside Road and also signatures Matharu 36 Hillside Road, of 6 other residents opposing application Corfe Mullen On 12 September 2012, Mr Fisher informed us that he was replacing his old shed with an office. There was no mention of a Treatment Room for physiotherapy at this time. 1. We have grave concerns about this application as the applicant on her website markets herself as a Chartered Veterinary Physiotherapist and refers to an animal clinic (see appendix A) 2. Hillside Road is a bridle way partly covered by gravel that can only accommodate single file traffic and the residents finance the upkeep of this road. With a business the road will deteriorate rapidly, at great expense to the residents. 3. On the planning application at 38 Hillside Road it states there is parking for four cars, however there is only parking space for three cars. This is of concern as there is no parking space for any other vehicles on the road, and this will lead to gridlock of traffic as it is anticipated that there could be heavy usage of this animal clinic. The frontage of no.38 Hillside Road is so tight that their car bonnets are within inches of the main wall of the house, and the bumper sticks out on the road. There is no pavement. 4. Hillside Road is a tranquil residential area and with magnificent views over open countryside and despite having tiny gardens on top of each other, the residents enjoy the quietness of the countryside, and would be concerned about the real usage of this building proposed in the application. 5. Our patio at number at no. 36 Hillside Road is situated only approx. 1 metre from this "Garden Room" and we are concerned about the extra noise coming from such a business, ie. use of therapy machines and excess conversations from customers as well as the howling and barking from animals. 6. Of public health concern is how needles, syringes, soiled swabs and excreta from animals will be removed from the proposed building. 7. On a number of occasions, customer's cars have been seen leaving 38 Hillside Road. We have witnesses to support this fact. This could mean us subject to a 7-day a week business, therefore limit the

use of our own garden. 8. Finally, there is a Clause on the Deeds of our homes at both Hillside and Buddens Meadow indicating that we are forbidden to run a business from our properties.

Mr L & Mrs S Hardy 1 Object Buddens Meadow, 32 We write to object to the above application for Hillside Road planning permission based on the factors explained below. Hillside Road is an un-adopted, largely unmetalled, highway which has to be maintained by the residents and at their expense. The part of Hillside Road on which number 38 is located is a single gravel track. This is a quiet residential area bordered by farm and woodland. The lane is used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists and is also used by parents and children walking to school. Main vehicle use is by residents accessing their homes. Considerable effort has been put into maintaining the nature of the lane, with various plans to tarmac the whole of the lane being objected to so that it does not become a "rat run". Indeed the residents at number 38 who have submitted this planning application objected to earlier applications to metal the road on the basis that:

Comment submitted Wed 07 Oct 2009 regarding 3/09/0816/FUL Object Quiet lane to allow safe recreational use by walkers, horse riders and cyclists. Concerned that other proposals would follow to tarmac further Detrimental impact to area Traffic speed, Drainage and Wildlife concerns

Comment submitted Wed 08 Jul 2009 regarding 3/09/0518/FUL Object We chose our property because of quiet nature of unmade road which helps to moderate traffic and enable pedestrians to walk/cycle safely. Likely to set a precedent for further surfacing which could create a rat run. Contrary to policy CM13. Concerned over drainage provision as unmade road helps slow down water run-off. Accordingly, any development causing more vehicle access would put an unacceptable burden on the residents who would have to repair any road deterioration. The statement made within the planning application that there are 4 parking spaces is misleading in the extreme. While the physical space available may

provide room for 4 small vehicles off road, vehicle doors could not be opened. Accordingly only 3 useable parking spaces are available. Vehicles so parked will encroach on the walk-way forcing pedestrians onto the lane with traffic, and typical family sized vehicles will encroach onto the road area of the lane. We note that the "Supporting Planning Statement" from Mr. B. Twigg labours on the provision of parking spaces. He stresses that there is off road parking for visitors within 3 separate paragraphs of his statement. As he states the owners have 2 vehicles. This leaves space for one further vehicle. We judge that this is inadequate provision either for visiting clients or for any additional staff required in the future and that if used in support of a business will increase the risk to pedestrians using the lane to access property or schools. This planning application is to use the newly built structure for physiotherapy/acupuncture/massage and the website and trade vehicle associated with the business notes that this is for "pets and their owners". It is inevitable that a business of this nature will produce contaminated products, at a minimum acupuncture needles and associated blood contaminated material and likely animal waste. The planning application does not address these issues; it states in section 11 "unknown"against the statements "Please state how foul sewage is to be disposed of" and "Are you proposing to connect to existing drainage system?". However the plans for the structure show a sink within it. Section 16 of the planning application form regarding trade effluent. "Does the proposal involve the need to dispose of trade effluents or waste?" This has been filled in as "no". Therefore there appears to be no provision to safely deal with any contaminated products that result from the business. We judge that this will result in an unacceptable health hazard in this residential area. In conclusion, and drawing from the extract of the East Dorset Local Plan noted by Mr Twigg, developments will not be permitted that will impose unacceptable impacts from existing or likely future development in terms of health, safety and traffic. We consider that these conditions pertain in this instance and object to the planning application on that basis and request that it is not approved.

Mr & Mrs Matko 34 Hillside We have some concerns about the proposed change Road, Corfe Mullen of use for our neighbours garden room to a dog physiotherapy room as follows:

Residential area Hillside Road is a very peaceful rural location looking out over fields, with far reaching views across the green belt countryside. The peace encourages walkers, runners, cyclists, local wildlife and birds. It is a tranquil residential location and I am strongly opposed to anyone setting up a business here, it is simply not a suitable location. Access Hillside Road is designated as a bridleway. The 'road' is single track, unadopted and mostly unpaved. This means that the maintenance of the unmade road surfaces is done at the expense of the residents. I feel quite strongly that encouraging extra traffic to no.38 will have a negative impact on peace and quiet, child safety and the residents' road maintenance costs. Parking There is very little depth of frontage for parking at number 38 Hillside Road and only parking for 2 cars. To encourage dog owners and their larger vehicles to no.38 is going to cause a nuisance to the neighbours. Since the road is single track there is no off road parking, there is a concern that parking will overspill to the front of our property and those of our neighbours.

Mr D Breedon Assoc RICS Precis of letter received received 4 April 2013: Agent For J Heczko & H A drawing submitted for change of use to support this Matharu, 36 Hillside Road application should show plan and details of existing or present usage together with details of future intended use. Little detail is shown on the submitted drawing. Only a single sink is shown and the smaller of the two rooms with no notes at all. If these premises are to be used as a clinic and treatment of dogs and other animals with clients staying up to a period of 1 and 2 hours duration, should not a toilet be provided? Details missing include no drainage layout for sink waste or top/surface water. No electrical layout, including lighting and power etc. However, the one pathway lighting from entrance gate to office door could disturb the local residents in dark nights. No pathways shown on drawing. The height of the constructed building exceeds 250mm overall. The fencing of adjoining residents is only a maximum height of 2000mm so the roof and sloping sections can be seen from adjoining gardens. Have the foundations been checked by Building Control? Two round galvanised bins have been placed to the front of no 38 for waste etc which look out of place.

A security code/vocal system has already been installed. There is only one available space for clients car parking and no parking on roadside, being a single unmade track. Why double doors to the north elevation. Is this for larger animals other than dogs?

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval and there have been 4 letters of objection from local residents, one of which has a petition with 6 signatures of local residents.

This proposal is to retain the use of the garden room at the rear of this dwelling as a treatment room for physiotherapy, acupuncture and massage. The site lies in the urban area and on the edge of the Green Belt.

The garden room was constructed under permitted development rights and would be permitted development if it was used incidentally to the enjoyment of the dwelling. However as it is used for business purposes, it is not incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling and is not permitted development.

The business only treats humans at the site and this has been confirmed by the applicant. However, the applicant who operates the business (Mrs Fisher) also treats animals, but these are treated on the clients’ premises or at veterinary practices and none are treated at the application site. This arrangement is to be continued by the proposal.

The business operates on an appointment basis between 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Saturday and on average between 6 to 12 clients are seen each week. There are no staff employed and patients are seen one at a time.

Saved Policies DES8, TRANS2, TRANS10 and CM13 of the East Dorset Local Plan are relevant to the proposal, and may be afforded weight as they will form the development plan together with Policies HE2 and KS12 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy (CS). A good deal of weight can be given to these CS policies as the CS has had 2 periods of public consultation and is due to be examined in public this year, and is at an advanced stage of preparation accordingly.

The main impact of the proposal is on the amenity of the occupants of adjacent dwellings.

The building used to treat patients is considered not to have any significant impact on the amenities of the occupants of adjacent properties or the character of the area, due to its modest scale, its separation distance from nearby dwellings and position to the rear of the dwelling.

The use of the building for treatment of humans for the alternative medical uses proposed is not considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of nearby residents as the use is low-key and not generally associated with noise or

disturbance. The use has been operating from the dwelling previously which has been regarded as not requiring planning permission. This is now not desirable as the applicant’s family has grown.

The hours of use and its low-key nature are considered to be compatible with a residential area and represents home-working which reduces commuting. There will be some disturbance from patients accessing the new building from the side gate, but this is not significant given the intensity of use. No adverse impact is considered to arise from this aspect of the proposal.

Neighbours have raised issues over provision of on-site parking, safe waste disposal, Building Regulations, greater intensity of use of Hillside Road and noise.

The on-site parking provision is considered acceptable at 3 spaces with a fourth available in the garage if needed. Dorset County Highways has not objected to the proposal and no adverse impact is foreseen in terms of highway safety.

Given the scale and nature of the business, waste generation is not great, and waste could be disposed in an appropriate manner, which is a separate matter to planning.

The Building Regulations are separate legislation to planning and are not a planning consideration.

The use of Hillside Road by patients is not great given the low number of patients seen each week, some which may come by means of transport other than the private car. Therefore this impact cannot be given great weight, and is no reason to resist the proposal. Additionally, the small amount of vehicle movements associated with the business is not considered to require improvements to Hillside Road that would be environmentally unacceptable. Policy CM13 of the EDLP is therefore accorded with.

The building is sited relatively close to the rear boundary of 36 Hillside Rd and 1 Buddens Meadow. However, the low-key use would not bring great levels of disturbance to the occupants of these properties and a building used for a use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling (which would be permitted development), such as a workshop, could result in greater noise. Only a small amount of weight can be attached to this impact accordingly.

Taking all the impacts into account, it is considered that the weight to be afforded to the impacts raised by the objectors is not substantial enough to warrant refusing the proposal and approval is recommended. This is because the proposal facilitates flexible working practices in integrating a residential and commercial use in the same unit as advocated by paragraph 21 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and accords with Policies DES8, TRANS2 and TRANS10 of the EDLP, as well as Policies HE2 and KS12 of the emerging Core Strategy.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The garden room that is proposed to be retained shall be used incidentally to the enjoyment of the dwelling at 38 Hillside Road, or for use as a treatment room for the practice of physiotherapy / acupuncture / massage on humans, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of adjacent dwellings.

2 The treatment of patients shall only be carried out during the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Saturday, with no use on Sundays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of adjacent dwellings.

3 Three parking spaces shall be kept available for parking of vehicles at the front of the property.

Reason: To provide off-street parking for clients of the business and occupants of the dwelling.

Informatives:

1 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies KS12 and HE2 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy Pre-Submission Consultation 5.11.2012 to 21.12.2012 in the determination of the application.

• the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, • the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/13/0190/HOU

Proposal: Erect 1.8m boundary fence

Site Address: 24 Westwood Avenue, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mr Robin Lovell

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 17 April 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 April 2013

Ferndown Town Council Objection Comments: The proposal is out of keeping with other properties in the street

Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION Development Liaison Officer to the proposal.

Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

This application comes before the Committee because the officer recommendation is at variance with the objection from Ferndown Town Council.

24 Westwood Avenue is a detached bungalow in the urban area of Ferndown. It is proposed to erect a new 1.8m high closeboard fence along a 3m stretch of the western boundary with Southwood Close, in order to screen the rear garden. The main considerations are highways safety, and the impact on the character of the area with reference to policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, HE2 of the Core Strategy and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Dorset County Highways have no objections to the proposal, and therefore there is considered to be no harmful impact on highways safety.

The fencing does not overshadow or have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties. The surrounding properties have relatively low boundary treatments at the front of the properties, adjacent to the highway; however this proposal is to screen the rear garden at the side boundary. There are some examples of boundary fences similar to the proposed, within the immediate townscape; including a very similar length of fencing approved in 2003, at number 22 Westwood Avenue, along the opposite boundary with Southwood Close, which screens the rear garden of the property in a similar way to the proposal.

No neighbour objections have been received, and the application is found to accord with policy DES8, and is therefore recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

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

3 The fence shall be finished with a dark brown or dark green stain, and retained in that colour unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

Informatives:

2 The policies and implications of the National Planning Policy Framework were taken into account in the consideration of this application.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/13/0209/FUL

Proposal: Subdivision of plot and erection of new detached dwelling, as amended by site plan rec'd 05/04/13

Site Address: Lingmell, Northleigh Lane, Colehill, for Mr H Macbeth

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 13 April 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 4 April 2013

Colehill Parish Council Objection Comments: Object on grounds of road safety. Leigh Lane is a narrow country road with no pavements. Cllr. David Packer will speak on behalf of the PC at the EDDC Committee meeting.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section The submitted Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement has demonstrated sufficiently that the salient trees located within and adjacent to this site would not be adversely affected should planning permission be granted. I therefore have no arboricultural objections. However, should you be minded to approve this application please ensure that a condition is imposed.

County Highways The County Highway Authority has no objection in Development Liaison Officer principle subject to an acceptable revised plan being submitted showing a visibility splay the back edge of which should be measured from 2.4 metres up the centre of the proposed access from the edge of the carriageway projecting to the most southerly point of the sites boundary fence and extending beyond to the carriageway of Northleigh Lane upon receipt of which final observations will be provided.

I refer to the above revised plan for the above application.

The County Highway Authority noted and carefully considered comments relating to the proposed new access; particularly following receipt of the revised plan showing the proposed access. This plan secures an improvement to the sightline between the proposed access and the junction of Leigh Lane with Northleigh Lane. Importantly however it retains sufficient vegetation on that part of the highway verge to 79

effectively restrict forward vision across the corner. It is this restriction combined with the tight radius of the junction that results in reduced speeds when turning left into Leigh Lane and makes this proposal, on what is an unclassified road, acceptable based upon current highway guidance.

The County Highway Authority therefore has NO OBJECTION, subject to conditions.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs Hill Fairfield Object House, 5 Leigh Road 1. As per the detailed site plan, the proposed access point to this new development onto Leigh Lane is extremely close to the junction of Northleigh Lane and Leigh Lane with limited vision - this lack of vision combined with a junction with a proven history of being very dangerous will only serve to make this junction even more of a problem. 2. As part of this planning application, a significant number of trees (at least seven) will need to be removed including Ash, Firs and Sycamore. Furthermore, at least three trees are detailed as ‘unknown' species. As a minimum, I believe an independent aboriculturalist should be commissioned to conduct a detailed aboricultural survey prior to any planning permission being granted. Any impact on the trees and their root system should be minimized and I believe the proposed plan hasn't gone far enough in meeting this objective. Most properties in the surrounding areas are covered by site TPO's including mine. 3. Negative affect on wildlife habitat - over the last few years, I have enjoyed seeing Grass Snakes and Slow Worms in my garden and the surrounding area. Please see attached photo of a grass snake in my garden as supporting evidence. I believe the proposed development would have a negative impact on the local habitat which is very close to Leigh Common, a local nature reserve In summary, the likely negative affect in terms of wildlife habitat, significant reduction in good quality specimen trees and increased danger at the junction of Leigh Lane and Northleigh Lane have resulted in me submitting this planning objection.

C & H Curtis Fairfield Lodge, Object Leigh Lane We strongly object as nearby property owners to the above planning application on the following grounds - 1. The proposed entrance to the site is in an

extremely dangerous location at the crossroads of narrow lanes. There have already been numerous accidents and incidents at this crossroads mainly because of the poor visibility due to the railway bridge, fences, hedges etc. Vehicular access to/from the proposed site would be very vulnerable causing danger to all road users. 2. The proposed building is too large for the site, overlooks neighbouring properties and also projects in front of the building line of nos. 1 & 3 Leigh Lane. 3. The number of trees being felled seems to be excessive , Is there a Tree Preservation Order in force on this section of Leigh Lane, there certainly is on our property ? 4. If this proposal were to go ahead, the site being very restricted, contractors vehicles would be parked in Leigh Lane,Northleigh Lane & Beaucroft Lane causing further obstruction and even more danger to road users and in particular pedestrians as there are no pavements. In conclusion because of the above concerns we hope this planning application is refused.

S & J Garrett 45 Leigh Lane, We are writing to strongly object to the proposed new Colehill dwelling access into Leigh Lane from the new proposed detached dwelling planned to be sited in the garden of Lingmell, Northleigh Lane, Colehill. We believe this access would pose a considerable safety hazard as, from the site plan it appears this would be sited approx. 57ft from what is already well known to be a dangerous crossroad involving 3 narrow lanes. Vehicles tend to travel too fast down Northleigh Lane towards these crossroads, also vehicles travelling round the blind corner from down Northleigh into Leigh Lane would find it diffcult to stop if a vehicle was pulling out of the new access. Additionally Leigh Lane is a narrow roadway and I understand approx. 14ft wide at this point. As residents of Leigh Lane we have no hesitation in opposing this application on the grounds the planned access would be a severe safety hazard; we hope the Planning Dept will recognise our fears and reject the application.

G & E Fitch 2 Leigh Lane, Having reviewed the proposed plans I would like to Colehill strongly object to this planned development. The main reason for this objection is due to the proposed access to Leigh Lane. The proposed entrance to this new dwelling would be extremely close to the Leigh Lane / Northleigh Lane / Beaucroft Lane crossroads. This is a very dangerous

crossroads and has numerous near misses and accidents on a daily bases. Every day we have issues around this junction, particular around the normal rush hour periods at the beginning and end of the day, due to the high usage of this junction by vehicles and residence of the Vineries and surrounding area. The speed limit for the road has already been reduced to try and reduce the risk at this junction, but there are still many incidents. If you also add to this the very high usage of this junction by cyclists and pedestrians during the evening and weekends (with no cycle or foot path), the likelihood of an accident would be severely increased should this development and the access via Leigh Lane be approved.

Other issues related to this junction. Very poor lighting. High volume of traffic travelling up and down Northleigh Lane on a daily basis (cut through) Vehicle travelling up and down Northleigh Lane (through this junction) at high speed. Blind hill just before crossroads coming up the hill and coming down. In the winter this junction is normally very icy. During the summer, walker stop on the bridge just before the junction. The turning (when travelling down Northleigh Lane ) into Leigh Lane is a blind turning due to the trees and bushes. Leigh Lane is very narrow at the crossroads (at the point where the proposed access point is) Vehicles have problems passing each other every day. My strong objection is therefore based on safety grounds, due to the serious safety risk and high potential of an increased potential for accidents at the crossroads due to vehicles accessing the proposed development.

Mrs K E Lowden 4 Fairfield Object Close, Colehill In 2010 the County Council issued the a notice to reduce the speed limit on the stretch of North Leigh Lane between Leigh Road and the old railway bridge on North Leigh Lane. It was not implemented. However, the potential danger still exists, especially at the junction of Leigh Lane and North Leigh Lane. The proposed development at Lingmell, North Leigh Lane, if carried out can only increase the danger. The short distance between the junction of North Leigh Lane and the proposed access to Lingmell is insufficient to allow more than one vehicle to stop to

allow vehicles exiting from Lingmell onto Leigh Lane. More than one vehicle would necessitate a second vehicle blocking the carriageway of North Leigh Lane. I am therefore unable to support the application. Could I take this opportunity to suggest that safety at the junction of Leigh Lane and North Leigh Lane could be improved by widening the junction or increasing visibility by removing some of the bushes. Should the application be approved, hopefully there will have been a road test before the final decision is reached.

Foskett & Co. Beechcroft, No objection Northleigh Lane I would prefer to see a lower or less dense fencing on the boundaries, however. Privacy could be retained for the residents by planting, and the resultant maintenance of the verges make the site look tidier and improve the sight-line at the crossroads. Vision is impaired at the crossroads by the parapet of the Railway Bridge and the hump in the road surface there, and the only solution to the problem at the junction is to further slow the traffic coming down hill in Northleigh Lane - having lived on our site for 53 years, we have seen many near-misses but two underline my point - one when a milk-float run off the road into a ditch, and one when a saloon car hit a tree at the bottom of our drive - in each case failing to negotiate the left-hand curve below the driveway to ‘Lingmell' and continuing on to the wrong side of the road. In the short term, would it be possible to make it a condition of the development that all Contractors vehicles are parked on the site, rather than left in the roadway? Many years ago, builders used to transport their workforce to a site by lorry and pick them up at the end of their working day. Now, using sub-contractors, each brings their own vehicle and a building site becomes a parking problem of its own .

L E Halton Hollybank House, Concern North Leigh Lane The proposal represents, in my opinion, an over development resulting in a small garden area and not in keeping with the density of its surrounding dwellings. Access too may also be on the dangerous side but I will leave that issue to your highways adviser.

Further comments received 19.4.13 We write to express our concerns over highway safety

at the junction with Leigh Lane and North Leigh Lane and the proposed site access. It is our opinion that the various authorities who consider planning issues should not make matters of highway safety worse than the situation which currently exists. Clearly approval to the application would in our opinion do just that with the proposed access to the site in Leigh Lane being too close to the junction with North Leigh Lane. We therefore ask that on grounds of highway safety Dorset County Council record an objection to the proposals as submitted.

Nick & Linda Bridle 1 Leigh Object Lane, Colehill Summary of letter recd. on 28.3.13 - full letter on file. Objection based on the following: A significant risk to members of the public being killed or seriously injured due to the proposed access to the property from Leigh Lane. Clarification of who is liable in law for the "Duty of Care" to the public with regards to the proposed access should a fatality or serious injury occur - a member of the Council, Planning Committee, the Highways Department or the developer? Our limited knowledge of local planning policies and national planning guidance. Day to day observations/experiences living at 1 Leigh Lane - next door to the proposed development. Discussing the development with the developers - Cawdor Construction Ltd. Our visit to the planning office on 21.3.13 where we viewed the plans and discussed the proposal with a planning officer. Objection 1: Effects on traffic, road access, visibility, parking, turning and safety. 2: Impact on adjoining properties: overshadowing, privacy and loss of daylight. 3: Loss of amenity. 4: Other issues: The boundary fence between Lingmell and our property is in extremely poor condition due to the wet ground. Also, many established trees and shrubs between the properties will have to be removed. Loss of view. Proposed property is far too big for the plot. We would also like you to additionally consider the added dangers involved through lorries, contractors' vehicles and suppliers dropping off materials during the build period. Also, we have noticed there are two planning

applications on the telegraph pole in Northleigh Lane (as no pavement, no pedestrians will see this). Can we suggest these are posted on the telegraph pole in Leigh Lane where the access is proposed to ensure local residents are made aware. Due to this oversight, could we ask that the deadline date for objections is extended?

Further email recd. 18.4.13: Can I re-iterate the needs to reduce the building sizes and overbearing nature on our own property and they need to be smaller and further away from our boundary. E-mail to Colin Graham copy recd. 18.4.13: I have been informed that you are technical planning representative for DCC Highways Department. Can I ask for your support in rejecting this application for Lingmell on serious road safety grounds with regards to access from Leigh Lane. Supporting powerpoint presentation identifies all the hazards, risks and issues. This proposed 4 bedroom property may well have up to 3 cars in the drive at any one time, meaning cars will also have to reverse out at times. Please also note there will be significant road safety issues with regards to builders/contractors and delivery lorries parking on narrow road verges and in lanes, if construction takes place.

Mr & Mrs MJ & SDJ Object Dillingham 3 Leigh Lane, We have grave concerns as to the safety of the Wimborne proposed access to this dwelling being situated so close to an already hazardous junction. The months of construction work with associated lorries and plant would directly impact on access to Leigh Lane and the safe negotiation of the Northleigh Lane/Leigh Lane/Beaucroft Lane junction by pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. This area is home to both slow worms and grass snakes, both of which are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I shall be writing to the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation to inform them of these plans so that a proper assessment of the impact of this proposed development on these protected species can be undertaken.

Mr & Mrs Andrew & Valerie Object Bartholomew 2 Fairfield The proposed access drive to the new dwelling is very Close, Colehill close to the entrance to Leigh Lane from Northleigh Lane and we feel it will present a significant risk to both vehicles and pedestrians. Leigh Lane, at this point, is approximately only 14 feet wide and there

isn't a footpath on either side. We use this route on a regular basis walking with our dog and grandson and we have to take great care as vehicles frequently come down Northleigh Lane at speed greater than the 30mph limit. This obviously can be quite dangerous specially if they turn into Leigh Lane. Secondly, we cannot see where tradesmen's vehicles could park safely nor where delivery vehicles could unload without causing significant hazards for all other road users. The crossroads of Northleigh Lane, Leigh Lane and Beaucroft Lane have already been the scene of several accidents and the proposed access can only really increase the potential for a serious accident.

L J Norris 59A Leigh Lane, Object Colehill I believe that the crossroads of Northleigh Lane will be made even more dangerous than they presently are. If the development is permitted, any cars entering or leaving Lingmell would pose a real threat to cars turning into Leigh Lane, as cars turning into Leigh Lane would have to pause in the middle of this junction waiting for them to clear. Please do not make an already very dangerous junction even more hazardous by permitting the development at Lingmell.

Roger & Stephanie Selwyn Object 19 Colborne Avenue, We have considerable concerns regarding the Colehill position of the access for vehicles to and from the site.

The plans show that it is intended for both vehicles and pedestrians to use a driveway of barely 3 metres to be constructed within approximately 14 metres of a very difficult junction of Northleigh Lane, Leigh Lane and Beaucroft Lane.

It is shown that it is intended for there to be a 2 metre high fence bounding the highway, joined by a 2 metre high brick wall bounding the entire west side of the driveway.

The verge at the point intended for the driveway entrance is barely 2 metres.

There is no apparent intention for a significant visibility splay to minimise the hazard.

It is unlikely that it would be possible to make the entrance wider since the distance between the east boundary of the proposed plot to the BT box shown is

barely 3 metres.

Leigh Lane is very narrow at this point, and a substantial telegraph pole close to the vehicular highway together with the difficult junction already cause a considerable hazard for vehicles negotiating the corner.

Due to the nature of the winding roads, substantial vegetation and the narrow iron bridge immediately to the south of the junction none of the sight-lines for vehicles, from any direction, are good.

During the 45 years that we have been resident on The Vineries estate there have been innumerable minor collisions.

Northleigh Lane is also used by many pedestrians to reach amenities such as Post Office, Churches, schools and public transport, there is no footway on this road and at the iron bridge it is particularly narrow creating conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. To site such a narrow entrance/exit with such restricted visibility would be most dangerous.

When the three properties to the south of Leigh Lane (Nos 2, 4 and 6) were constructed the vehicle access for all three was sited some considerable distance to the east opposite to the entrance to Fairfield House. This necessitates the residents of house No 2 travelling some distance past house No 4 before joining the public highway this was clearly done to resolve any possible safety issues of them exiting onto Leigh Lane.

This same precedent should be applied in this instance. With today's dependence on private vehicles the traffic situation has grown worse in the intervening years.

During the construction of the property, if approved, there will be a major safety problem.

A project of this magnitude will require numerous trades, groundworks, bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, decorators and etc., all of whom have vehicles to carry their tools, together with the multitude of lorries delivering the materials, fixtures and fittings, they will have absolutely nowhere to park.

This will be especially troublesome once the footings have been laid and construction commences as the footprint covers so much of the site there will be no space for any of them on site.

Northleigh Lane is narrow, the site is on an awkward bend too close to the already mentioned junction and without footpaths.

Leigh Lane too is exceedingly narrow, without footpaths for pedestrians.

Please note that Leigh Lane is the only vehicular access to the entire Vineries estate, an estate of about 160 properties. If any vehicle were to park on the highway at the site it would be totally impossible for the emergency services, particularly fire and ambulance to reach those properties, thus precipitating a catastrophe.

We must also comment that the bulk of the proposed property, coupled with the proposed extensions to Lingmell (Application 3/13/0206) almost doubling it's size, seem to be excessive for the site.

Mr D Foord 31 The Vineries, Object Colehill Highway Safety Prime concern is the proximity of the proposed access drive to the corner and intersection of Leigh Lane with Northleigh Lane.

Notwithstanding potential compliance with requirements of DCC Highways standards for Access onto a Highway and Stopping Sight Distances this is historically a dangerous junction, in the main due to poor visibility both north and south on Northleigh Lane, a drive entrance so close in Leigh Lane would likely add to present dangers.

DCC Highway Authority Officer, Colin Graham's response to the LPA consultation dated 21 March 2013 requires an acceptable revised plan showing a visibility splay, the back edge of which should be measured from 2.4m up the centre of the proposed access from the edge of the carriageway projecting to the most southerly point of the site's boundary fence and extending beyond to the carriageway of Northleigh Lane.

Such a visibility splay may be adequate for purpose of

access onto the carriageway when taking into account only egress from the drive of the proposal, an acceptable distance (by DCC standards) of some 19m from centre of drive to a driver position in a car on the bend and entering Leigh Lane from the north, a stopping sight distance when travelling at a speed of approximately 17-18 mph.

The Manual for Streets "Forward Visibility" states: "On Bends it is often necessary to ensure that forward visibility (in this case from vehicles in travelling south down Northleigh Lane) is provided to allow a driver to stop safely if there is an obstruction in the road (Leigh Lane) ahead"

Due to the semi rural atmosphere of this intersection forward visibility on this bend may not have been considered but for the reasons outlined above and in the interest of best possible highway safety perhaps all available safety measures should be followed and an appropriate Visibility Splay Envelope requested and applied on this bend.

On-site Parking and Manoeuvring Notwithstanding the comfortable well considered plan form and fenestration of the proposed dwelling the proposal site appears insufficient in area to accommodate a four bedroom property including private amenity space plus the required turning area and parking for maximum of 4 vehicles in the curtilage or 3 + 1 nearby unassigned (EDDC Local Plan Appendix B. B4.1). The proposal indicates only a single garage and shows no additional parking or compliant turning space to allow egress in a forward direction.

Conclusion I object to the proposal in its present form on the following grounds:

1) No highway safety considerations have been addressed within the application submission. The visibility sight line requested by DCC Highways Officer Mr Colin Graham I believe falls short of a preferred "Forward Visibility" safety measure being applied on this bend, and in the light of the above and further information offered by others relating to the inherent dangers at this junction I respectfully request that the Highways Officer reviews his reply to the LPA consultation.

2) Notwithstanding the cramped nature of this proposed development the submitted documentation does not refer to or indicate (other than a single integral garage) on site parking and the necessary manoeuvring area associated with a new build four bedroom dwelling.

Paul & Susan Wright 6 Leigh Object Lane, Colehill We are concerned about the above application at the proposed entrance posing a serious safety risk to local residents and road users in Leigh Lane. The vehicle entrance should come from Lingmell's existing entrance/drive on a shared access basis arranged the same as the newer houses built opposite Lingmell and at 2, 4 and 6 Leigh Lane. This would be far safer, especially during times such as when the recycling and rubbish vehicles do their rounds which needs serious consideration.

Sally & Derek Atkins 8 We would like to object on safety grounds as Fairfield Close, Colehill residents of Fairfield Close we feel the proposed access to the new property is dangerously close to the junction of Leigh Lane and Northleigh Lane. This junction is already dangerous and has been the scene of many near misses and accidents. We speak from personal experience and we feel that an extra property access so near can only exacerbate this. There is also the problem of service and delivery vehicles parking at the property which is only a cars length from the junction. Cars turning into Leigh Lane from Northleigh would have very little view of vehicles using the proposed access, which would be extremely hazardous. The fact that the proposed dwelling is to be four bedrooms indicates that there could be multiple cars at the property using the access, which is also in very close proximity to a BT green box.

Sandy Petch 8 The Vineries, Having seen the proposed plans for this development, Colehill I have concerns regarding the siting of the access to the property onto Leigh Lane.

This is very close to a dangerous corner when turning in from North Leigh Lane. This is especially hazardous when coming down the hill and turning sharply left into a narrow lane, with poor sight lines. We already have problems when lorrys and vans access Leigh Lane as there is insufficient room to pass them. Pedestrians and cyclists will also be put at risk as they are even less visible.

Is there any reason why the drive could not be linked to the existing one in North Leigh Lane?

I was also concerned to see the number of mature trees which will be removed - is this necessary?

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval and the Parish Council has objected on the grounds of road safety. There have also been 15 letters of objection all concerned with this issue and only 1 with no objection to the proposal.

Site Description The corner plot of some 580m2 is the severed rear garden area of Lingmell which is situated in Northleigh Lane. The plot is situated on the northeast side of the crossroads of Northleigh Lane with Beaucroft Lane and Leigh Lane, and is covered by a Tree Preservation Order. It is a sloping site, with land dropping away in a southerly direction. The site lies in the urban area and is located between 400m and 5km of several sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSis).

Proposal The proposal involves severing the rear garden of the chalet bungalow Lingmell and erecting a 4 bedroomed chalet bungalow with integral garage. Main windows would face south and west to the road frontages with obscure glazed roof lights to the north and high level landing roof lights to the east. Access to the site would be from Leigh Lane, some 15m in from the crossroads.

An Outline application to develop this plot was refused in 1988 following an earlier appeal decision in 1976. However, this proposal has to be judged against current planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

It should be noted that there was pre application advice on this proposal and the agent taken note of reducing the footprint and increasing the distances from the boundaries of the site. There is also a current application for alterations and 2 storey side extensions to the parent dwelling Lingmell, which is yet to be considered – Ref 3/13/0206/HOU.

Planning Policy Saved Policies HODEV2 and NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan (EDLP) along with Policies LN2, KS11 and HE2 of the Emerging Core Strategy, paragraphs 58 - 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policies DES8 and TRANS2 of the East Dorset Local Plan (EDLP) are relevant to the consideration of this application as the main issues are the impact of the proposal on the character and visual amenities of the area and the impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties. In addition the proposal’s impact on heathland and transport infrastructure is also relevant.

Considerations The principle of an additional dwelling on this corner site, where there are two road frontages and a great variety of plot size and depth of building line, is considered acceptable. There is also a great variety of type of dwelling in the immediate area ranging from bungalows, chalet bungalows and 2 storey houses and of different age and style. Therefore it is considered the proposal would not adversely impact on the street scenes of either Northleigh Lane or Leigh Lane and the character of the area would not be harmed.

With regard to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjacent properties it is considered that the proposed new “L” shaped dwelling has been carefully designed to ensure that the parent dwelling, Lingmell to the north and no.1Leigh Lane to the east would not suffer from loss of privacy. On the north elevation only bathroom and ensuite roof lights are proposed which would be obscure glazed, and on the east elevation only a pair of rooflights above the stairwell and at a distance. Although the new dwelling is set well back in the site, there would still be some 11m distance from the rear of Lingmell, which given the character of the area is considered acceptable. Although the dwelling would be set less than 2m off the boundary with no.1 Leigh Lane the ridge of the garage is set practically 1m lower than the main ridge of the dwelling and in addition has a cropped gable to further lessen its impact on the neighbouring dwelling. It is contended that southwest light would still reach the side windows and outside area of No.1which adjoins the communal boundary fence.

The site lies within 400m and 5Km of several Sites of Special Scientific Interest of International Importance (SSSi), the nearest of which are Corfe Mullen Pastures and Canford Heath. Therefore an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations 1994 is required to be undertaken by the Council as ‘Competent Authority’ to determine whether the proposal, in combination with other plans and projects, will have an adverse impact on the SSSIs. Natural England has advised that on a site such as the application site that lies between 400m and 5km from the SSSIs an appropriate assessment may reasonably conclude that there would not be an adverse cumulative impact on the integrity of the SSSIs. This is on the basis of the adopted Dorset Heathlands Interim Strategy 2012 - 2014 which will provide mitigation against the impacts of new dwellings on the heathland. The Strategy requires a financial contribution from the applicant to go towards funding the mitigation measures. Provided the applicants submit the required contribution, no objection would be raised with regard to the impact of the scheme on the SSSIs. The submitted unilateral undertaking has an acceptable sum of money for the Heathland contribution, complying with Policy NCON4 of EDLP. The submitted Unilateral includes the South East Dorset Transport Contribution which is required for additional units of accommodation by bed spaces. The proposed contribution is acceptable, complying with Policy TRANS14 of EDLP. The County Highways Authority noted and carefully considered comments from neighbours but following receipt of amended plans has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Meanwhile the Tree Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to a condition.

Following pre application advice, a visit to the site and correspondence with other consultees the application is considered acceptable and recommended for approval. The proposal accords with Saved Policies HODEV2 and NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan (EDLP) along with Policies LN2, KS11 and HE2 of the Emerging Core

Strategy, paragraphs 58 - 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policies DES8 and TRANS2 of the East Dorset Local Plan (EDLP) and is recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: S1078 01,S1078 02a, S1078 04, S1078 05 and S1078 06

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

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

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no extension to the dwelling, garage or car port shall be erected without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: In the interests of controlling matters which may be detrimental to the original visual concept and the impact on neighbouring properties

5 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the rooflights on the north elevation (such expression to include the roof) shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re- enactment, no further fenestration shall be installed in the north or east elevations at first floor level without express planning permission.

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

6 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of trees on and adjacent to the site in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement prepared by Barrell Tree Consultancy, ref: 13053 AIA-DC dated the 8th February 2013. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown on the Tree Protection Plan, ref: 13053-BT1, before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered or excavations made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be discussed and agreed at the pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

Reason : To prevent protected trees on site from being damaged during building works

7 Before any other operations are commenced the visibility improvement as shown on Drawing Number 02a shall be cleared of vegetation; topsoiled and grass seeded; all to a specification to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

8 Before the development is commenced the first 2.6 metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, shall be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the access, turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 02a has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: In the interests of road safety

10 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until provision has been made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

11 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan and programme of works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include

contractors arrangements such as compound, storage, parking, turning (or banks-men assistance during reversing), surfacing and drainage.

The plan shall also include inspection of the Leigh Lane serving the site jointly between the developer (or his contractor) and Dorset Highways prior to work commencing and at regular, agreed intervals during the construction phase so that any damage to the edges of the carriageway and verges caused as a result of the development can be identified and suitable remedial works, to be paid for by the developer agreed.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Informatives:

1 In considering the proposal the Council were mindful of the National Planning Policy Framework

The following (or any other relevant comment) can be added to the statement dependent upon the application: , • the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, • The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

3 The applicants have provided a unilateral undertaking to pay the appropriate contribution in relation to Heathland mitigation as required by the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009 (as amended) and the Transport Infrastructure Contributions in accordance with the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Supplementary Planning Guidance.

4 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council’s Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/13/0271/HOU

Proposal: Side Extension to Provide Integral Garage, Raise Roof and Add Two Dormers to Front and Two Dormers to Rear to Provide Additional Accommodation at First Floor, Replacement Gabled Projection at Front and Gabled Addition at Rear. Site Address: 55 Oaks Drive, St Leonards, Ringwood, for Mr And Mrs W Fitch

Constraints Article 4 Directions Bournemouth International Airport Green Belt LP Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 9 May 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 30 April 2013

St Leonards And St Ives Object - No improvement on previous application. Parish Council Comments: We are concerned that due to the increase in accommodation there is the potential for an increase in traffic which may also lead to on road parking on what is a tight bend. We are concerned as we are informed that the plans are inaccurate and development is already proceeding. We are informed that the Officer is aware that the plans are inaccurate. We are informed that Enforcement has been notified.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section The salient trees, the vast majority of which are located in the neighbouring gardens, are all at a sufficient distance from the proposed extensions to ensure that they would not be adversely affected should planning permission be granted. I therefore have no arboricultural objections.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs M Turner 57 Oaks The impact on us has softened, though not in keeping Drive, St Leonards with surrounding properties. If an extension of 30 feet were to be built and with a pitched roof to line with height of the proposed garage it would seriously impact on our visual amenity looking west.

A PD maximum ridge height of 4m with hipped end would help to alleviate.

Officers Report:

This application is presented for consideration by the Planning Committee because the officer recommendation is at variance to the objection raised by the Parish Council.

Site Description Oaks Drive is a residential road located within the St Leonards and St Ives Urban Area comprising large detached bungalows set parallel to the road towards the front of large plots. A number of the bungalows have benefitted from enlargement and alteration and there is a variety of property styles in the street scene. No.55 Oaks Drive is a rectangular shaped detached bungalow with gabled end elevations. The bungalow has rendered walls and a pitched tiled roof and there is a flat roof extension on the rear elevation.

The front boundary is marked by a low rendered wall and the side boundaries are predominantly marked by vegetation in front of the bungalow and close boarded fencing to the rear.

A flat roofed carport and single garage with a pitched roof set behind the bungalow have recently been demolished.

Proposal This application seeks to enlarge the footprint of the bungalow by extending 5.5m to the side previously occupied by the car port and replacing a gabled element that projects forward of the front elevation with a centralised gabled element with a first floor feature window.

The proposal also seeks to provide first floor accommodation by raising the ridge of the enlarged bungalow by 1m and adding two dormers to the front roof slope. At the rear two gabled dormers and a first floor gabled extension is proposed and the scheme provides for four bedrooms with en suites on the first floor with a further bedroom with an en suite on the ground floor.

History A single storey flat roofed rear extension was erected following a planning consent in 1984 and a side addition under an extension to the ridged roof was erected following a planning consent in 1987.

Applications for 5 dwellings on the site were refused in 1987 and 2006.

2007 An application for a rear boundary fence was approved

2008 An application for a new front boundary wall and modified entrance was refused.

2013 An application for a side extension and to raise the existing roof (by 1.65m) to provide additional accommodation at first floor was withdrawn in February. This proposal included three dormers to the front and three dormers to the rear, and proposed a gabled roof form with single ridge line across the full width of the enlarged dwelling.

In 2009 in response to a pre-application enquiry with regard to proposed extensions to no.55 (including a 1.2m increase in ridge height) the applicant was advised that: "The size of the plot together with the fact that no.55 is set back from its neighbours suggests that an increase in the height of the roof with a small rear extension might be acceptable."

The officer also advised that "properties in this road remain traditional" and concern was expressed about the introduction of "rather more modern design features", in particular the dormer windows were considered "overly quirky".

Considerations The main issues in the consideration of this application are the impact on the character of the area, the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and nature conservation.

Character and Appearance There is no objection in principle to the extension and alteration of properties in this location and the history of nearby development in the street scene, indicates that there is a continuing process of enlargement and evolution of the properties in vicinity of the site.

Given that it is lower in height, includes fewer dormers and provides for a subservient roof form over the side extension, the proposal is considered less dominant than the previously withdrawn scheme.

The building is on a bend in the road and is set back relative to the adjacent properties, the enlarged building is not perceived in wider views of the street scene and the proposals would not therefore appear visually dominant or incongruous to the character of the area.

The alterations are therefore considered an appropriate enlargement of the host property.

Amenity of neighbouring properties Although it would impact on the outlook from the rear of no.53, the enlarged building would be approximately 10m away, is located to the north west of no.53 and there is a garage with a ridged roof in between the two dwellings. These factors are sufficient to determine that the enlarged building would not significantly impact on the amenities of the occupiers of no.53. One of the proposed dormers would enable some overlooking of the private amenity space of no.53 but this would be at an oblique angle and partially screened by the intervening garage and is therefore unlikely to result in any significant loss of privacy to no.53.

Notwithstanding the proximity to the common boundary with no.57, and relative to the utility and day room addition at that property, the cropped gable end elevation, and reduced height of the roof over the side extension minimises the impact on no.57. It is not considered that the height and disposition of the side elevation would result in an overbearing relationship to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of no.57.

The disposition of the first floor windows and dormers in the rear elevation of the enlarged building would result in oblique views across the rear garden of no.57 and it is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in any significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of that property.

Protected Species A bat survey submitted with the application and this found no evidence of bat use of the building.

Other matters During site visits officers have observed that a temporary garage structure has been erected at the front of the property and concrete bases have been erected in the rear garden and to the rear of the proposed side extension. These matters are not included in this application and are subject of separate enforcement investigation.

Conclusion The proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area or on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties. This proposal would therefore accord with to the development criteria of policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and Paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework and is recommended for approval.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing no.R4888/10.

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

3 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the development, hereby permitted, shall be identical in every respect to those of

the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

Informatives:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, and the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

2 The applicant(s) is (are) advised that the proposed development is situated in close proximity to the property boundary and "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996" is therefore likely to apply. An explanatory booklet relating to this Act is available free of charge from The DoE Publications Despatch Centre, Blackhorse Road, London SE99 6TT. Tel 0181 691 9191 (fax 0181 694 0099). Alternatively, copies of the booklet may be available from the District Council (subject to availability).

3 The applicant is advised that this consent does not authorise the retention of the temporary garage structure that has been erected in front of the dwelling and a separate planning application should be submitted for temporary consent for the retention of the structure. Similarly, any construction on the concrete bases that have been laid to the side and rear of the dwelling may require planning consent and you are advised to obtain the necessaary approvals prior to carrying out any further works.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

100

Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/13/0276/HOU

Proposal: Rear Extension to Include Balcony

Site Address: 25 St Stephens Lane, Verwood, Dorset, for Mr And Mrs Gibson

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 1 June 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 20 May 2013

Verwood Town Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section The group of mature Oaks on site are protected by a TPO. These trees grow 20m+ away from the existing property and are not a constraint on the proposed rear extension. The applicant has already set an area aside for the mixing and /or storing of materials during development and this is situated outside the rooting area of the protected trees. For the reasons just given, I have no arboricultural objections to this proposal.

If you are minded to approve this proposal, please include the tree condition.

Neighbour Comments: None

Officers Report:

This application is brought before the Planning Committee as the applicants are related to an elected member of the Council.

St Stephens Lane is an unmade road comprising detached dwellings set in typically large plots located within the defined Urban Area of Verwood. No.25 St Stephens Lane is a chalet bungalow positioned centrally within a large rectangular plot with a large driveway to the front (east) and an enclosed garden to the rear (west). There is currently a small conservatory at the northern side of the rear elevation. There is a detached building in the garden that was originally a double garage but was granted consent for change the use to a chiropractic clinic, along with a single storey extension, in 1991.

This application proposes the addition of a 4 metre extension to the rear (west) elevation to include additional rooms to the ground floor with a balcony area above. Windows at ground floor level are proposed to the rear (west) and sides of the extension. The extension would be the full width of the existing dwelling and continue the roofline of the main roof to a height of 2.5 metres on the southern side of the balcony and 3 metres on the northern side, leaving the balcony open above.

101

The key policies relating to this application are DES8 of the adopted Local Plan which calls for good quality design that is compatible with the surrounding development. Policy HE2 of the emerging Core Strategy relating to good design is also relevant. A negative bat survey certificate has been provided. The properties to be most affected by the proposals are no.27 to the north and no.23 to the south. No’s 32 and 34 School Close abut the rear boundary of the application site however the extension is some 40 metres from the rear boundary and screened by mature trees so there is unlikely to be any impact upon these properties.

The dwelling at no.25 is 2 – 3 metres from the northern boundary with no.27, which includes a bungalow set on higher ground with windows directly facing the application site. There is an approximately 1.6 metre fence between the two properties but it appears that some overlooking may currently be possible. The proposed extension would not allow any greater level of overlooking between the two properties as the balcony is well screened to the side and the ground floor windows are at a lower level than no.27. Whilst the application site is directly to the south of no.27 the roof of the extension slopes away from the northern boundary therefore no significant loss of sunlight to the property should occur.

The dwelling at no.25 is 1.5 metres from the southern boundary with no.23, which includes a chalet bungalow with three dormer windows directly facing the site. There is an approximately 2 metre fence between the two properties that prevents overlooking at ground floor level. Adequate screening would be provided for the balcony to ensure that the amenity of neither property is compromised.

The works are entirely to the rear of the dwelling and would therefore have no impact upon the streetscene or the character of the area.

The EDDC Tree Section was consulted due to TPO protected trees at the rear of the site.

The Parish Council had no objection.

The application complies with the policies mentioned about and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

102

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Plan; Ground Floor Plan, Rear Elevation and Section AA as Proposed; and, Proposed Side Elevations.

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

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

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

4 Throughout the duration of development the following activities shall not take place within a 7 metre radius of the Oak trees growing within the rear garden of 25 St Stephens Lane, Verwood without written permission from the Council.

' Storage of building materials. ' Manoeuvring or storage of plant machinery. ' Mixing of cement. ' Excavations (including soakaways). ' Raising or lowering of ground levels. ' Fires.

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

Informatives:

1 In reaching this decision regard has been taken of the National Planning Policy Framework

Policy Considerations and Reasons

103

Item Number: 11. Ref: 3/13/0299/HOU

Proposal: Two storey side extension, rear single storey extension. as amended by plans received 15th May 2013

Site Address: 57 Hadrian Way, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr Paul Glanville

Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Groundwater Source Protection Zone Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp: 15 May 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 May 2013

Corfe Mullen Parish Objection Council Comments: The proposal will result in a cramped, contrived development which will jar with surrounding properties. There is also concern about the proximity to garages at the rear. Contrary to DES8.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section There are no trees of significance that would be adversely affected should planning permission be granted. I therefore have no arboricultural objections.

Neighbour Comments:

Mr David Vivian 86 Hadrian My objection is that the proposed extension is over- Way, Corfe Mullen large for the site and will have the appearance of having been shoehorned in. I am also uneasy about it’s close proximity to my garage walls.

Officers Report:

This application is brought to Committee at the request of Cllr Anne Holland. In addition the Parish Council object to the proposal contending it is contrary to Policy DES8, and there is one letter of objection. Meanwhile the officer recommendation is to approve the application.

Site Description The site lies at a sharp bend in the road within a housing development built in the early 1990s. It is occupied by a two storey two bed semi-detached dwelling with a garage situated at the front of the site attached to the garage of the adjoining property no.55. There are additional car parking spaces to the front and side of the garage. The site is open plan to the front, but the rear garden is enclosed by a 1.8m high wooden fence.

Proposal This application follows on from pre-application advice.

104

This proposal is for alterations and a two storey side extension to the dwelling to create a new kitchen with additional utility room and separate wc with an additional master bedroom with ensuite above. In addition a single storey flat roofed rear extension is proposed to create a dining area. This would have a lantern roof light in it. Amended plans show this extension set back off the side boundary.

Planning Policy Policy HE2 of the Emerging Core Strategy, along with paragraphs 58 - 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan (EDLP) are relevant to the consideration of this application as the main issues are the impact of the proposal on the character and visual amenities of the surrounding area and the impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

Considerations The layout of this housing development is such that this dwelling is set away from the road behind no.55, but it has views across grassed open space to the corner of the road. It is contended that the two storey side extension would not appear intrusive in the street scene as it is set back from the building line of the pair of semi detached dwellings and behind the garages of these dwellings in one section of the road, and in addition, behind these properties as the road turns the corner into the cul de sac. As the extension is set back and has a ridge 1m lower than the existing ridge height it would also appear subservient to the existing dwelling. Furthermore it complements the original dwelling, proposing materials and windows that match the original building. The proposed rear extension would not be visible in the street scene.

Meanwhile distances of the extensions from the boundaries of the site are considered acceptable, but it is considered prudent to have an informative regarding the Party Wall Act.

Set away from neighbouring residential properties the proposed side extension would not cause any loss of amenity by way of being overbearing. Furthermore the additional first floor bedroom window would face the public open frontage, and the other, rear first floor window serving the ensuite would be obscure glazed. Therefore there would be no loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings by reason of overlooking. The dining area extension, set behind a 1.8m high fence being flat roofed and only 3m in depth would not cause any demonstrable harm to the amenities of no.55.

It is noted that there is no arboricultural objection to the proposal.

Conclusion It is considered that the proposal accords with Policy HE2 of the Emerging Core Strategy, along with paragraphs 58 - 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DES8 of the EDLP as it is compatible with its surroundings with regard to the layout and scale of the proposal, its visual impact in its surroundings and its relationship with neighbouring properties. It is therefore recommended for approval.

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

105

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TDB-15-001, TDB-15-002, TDB-15-003 Rev A, TDB-15-004 Rev A, TDB-15-005 Rev B, and TDB-15-006 Rev A.

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

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

4 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the first floor window on the east elevation (such expression to include the roof) shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration shall be installed in the east or south elevation at first floor level without express planning permission.

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

Informatives:

1 In considering the application the Council were mindful of the National Planning Policy Framework

• the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, • the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

106

3 The applicant(s) is (are) advised that the proposed development is situated in close proximity to the property boundary and "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996" is therefore likely to apply. An explanatory booklet relating to this Act is available free of charge from The DoE Publications Despatch Centre, Blackhorse Road, London SE99 6TT. Tel 0181 691 9191 (fax 0181 694 0099). Alternatively, copies of the booklet may be available from the District Council (subject to availability).

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 12. Ref: 3/13/0368/FUL

Proposal: Removal of Condition 2 of Planning Permission 3/12/0883/FUL to Allow Opening Until 24:00 on Fridays and Saturdays

Site Address: Cinnamon Lounge, Verwood Road, Woodlands, for Zaina Zahra Ltd

Constraints Area of Great Landscape Value LP Bournemouth International Airport Green Belt LP Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Site Notice exp: 30 May 2013 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 22 May 2013

Knowlton Parish Council To be reported. Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION Development Liaison Officer to the proposal.

EDDC Public Health - The public health department has received complaints Housing And Pollution regarding this premise with respect of noise and odour. I have no objection to the above condition being varied / removed to allow the premise to open to 24:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. However, the existing conditions need to be enforced as if the premise plays music for another hour, when they are not permitted to play music by condition 1 of 3/12/0883/FUL, this will further impact on the amenity of local residents.

107

Neighbour Comments:

R & L Plowman Blue We strongly object to the removal of condition 2 which Cedars, The Green would permit the Cinnamon Lounge to open until midnight on Friday and Saturdays. Woodlands is a quiet residential village with no background noise or street lighting. The impact of vehicles and people leaving the restaurant at midnight and beyond will be very disruptive to the residential houses in the close proximity to the restaurant. We already have to deal with noisy patrons, car doors slamming, car engines and bright headlights leaving the premises at 11.00pm. To extend this to midnight would have an even greater impact on those who live close to the restaurant. The restaurant has very recently been granted extended opening hours with a great deal of thought and discussion taking place at the Council's Planning Committee to ensure that the right conditions are imposed to protect local residents. The owners of the Cinnamon Lounge appear not to want to compromise in any way and have shown a total disregard for local residents by playing loud music, opening beyond agreed trading hours and allowing noisy revellers in the car park. Are we to endure the constant "chipping away" at planning conditions until they are allowed to trade however they want! We feel 12 hours trading every day is more than enough for any restaurant to make a successful business. The Planning Committee must stand by its original decision of the 11pm closing time. Surely this is the compromise between the Cinnamon Lounge and local residences. John & Daphne Fairburn, Object 55A The Green We refer to the above application with regard to the extension of the opening hours at the Cinnamon Lounge in Woodlands.

Woodlands is a quiet rural area and we have, in the past, had minimal disturbance until the opening of the Cinnamon Lounge. Since the opening of the restaurant we have suffered disturbance caused by music and noise late at night.

Following on from the last planning application (3/12/0883/FUL) agreement was implemented to reduce the level of music, restrict outside dinning to an acceptable time thus minimising noise. Opening hours have been increased since the original planning was granted in 2003 and we have accepted

108

the changes in order that the restaurant can reasonably trade. It was agreed by the planning committee that 23.00 was late enough in such a quiet residential area.

If opening hours are increased to midnight on Saturday and Sunday to allow for two sittings as suggested, then assuming 19.00 for the first sitting for 2.5 hours + time to clean for the second sitting. Second sitting would be 22.00 meaning finishing at 00.30 with resultant noise from traffic with people leaving the premises to well into the early morning. In such a quiet area as Woodlands this is unacceptable and we therefore object to the planning proposal. Officers Report:

This application is brought to Committee for determination due to the anticipated level of objection and the previous consideration of application 12/0883/FUL by the Planning Committee.

Site Description This site is a converted farm shop outside the village envelope of Woodlands in the Green Belt and the Woodlands Area of Great Landscape Value.

Background On the 8th January 2013 the Committee considered an application (12/0883/FUL) seeking retrospective consent for: • the decking and floodlights at the front of the building; • extended opening hours to comply with the site licence: 11.00-24.00 Mondays to Saturdays and 12.00-23.00 Sundays, Bank Holidays and National Public Holidays; and • the use of the outside decking area for the serving of food and drinks from opening until dusk. The application also sought consent to install an additional safety light at the western side of the building to highlight the change in levels between the main entrance to the restaurant and the car parking area to the west.

At the meeting a number of matters were discussed which included the impact of noise on nearby residents, the acceptability of the extended opening hours applied for and clarification of the origins of the covered storage building located on the western end of the premises.

Following that initial debate (and having heard the views of some local residents and the Parish Council during public speaking) Members resolved that the application be deferred to allow further consideration of various matters relating to whether the store area on the western side of the building has planning permission. It was also suggested that the applicant be approached in relation to possible alternative conditions to overcome some of the concerns raised by local residents including the issue of noise from music and whether the applicants would be prepared to accept a condition requiring the windows and doors to be closed when

109

music is playing, the installation of noise limiters and the opening hours of the Cinnamon Lounge.

Further consultation was carried out as a result of these discussions and the application was subsequently reported back to Committee in April. The agent's/applicant's written response to these issues was summarised in the officer report and the Committee resolved to approve the application subject to a number of conditions including condition 2 which limits the opening hours of the premises to 11:00 – 23:00 hrs Mondays – Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays and other public holidays. The condition also states that no customer shall be permitted on the premises outside these hours.

Proposal The current application seeks to change the opening times stipulated in condition 2 of planning consent 12/0883 to allow opening until 24:00 Fridays and Saturdays. The Agent's supporting letter states that the applicant is "currently not minded to implement" planning consent 12/0883 because "the conditions imposed are too onerous having regard to the effective net gain of being able to use the outside seating area and decking area between 17:30 and 20:00 June - September. In particular the prevention of playing amplified music and switching off of outside lighting at 22:00."

The agent states that the condition restricting opening hours to 23:00 on Fridays and Saturdays is preventing the applicant achieving two evening sittings (the first being around 19:00hrs and the second around 21:30 hrs) to make the best of the two busiest days.

Acknowledging that officers were prepared to support the previous application with a closing time of 24:00 subject to the conditions restricting amplified music and switching off of the outside lights at 22:00, the agent states that the applicant is still prepared to accept such conditions if they are allowed to operate until 24:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. Members are therefore being asked to reconsider their earlier decision.

Planning History 2003 Planning permission was granted on the 25th April, under application 3/03/0528/FUL, for the change of use of the farm shop to a restaurant. The farm shop had ceased training approximately two years before. Condition 4 attached to that planning permission limited the opening hours of the restaurant to: 12.00-23.00 Monday to Saturday and 12.00-22.30 on Sundays, Bank holidays and other National Public Holidays. Condition 6 limited the restaurant use to within the building and no serving of meals or associated drinks and seating outside in the open air or under the canopy.

Several breaches of planning control were reported and investigated in July 2012: • A decked area had been created at the front of the restaurant and floodlights installed; • Food and drink was being served to customers seated on the decked area; • There was an issue with cooking odours from the site;

110

• The premises were open beyond the hours stipulated under Condition 4 and there was general noise and disturbance from live music and people leaving the car parking area after midnight.

Opening Hours As originally submitted application 12/0883 sought extended opening hours to allow the premises to remain open until midnight Monday -Saturday and 11pm Sundays and bank Holidays. After further consideration in discussion with officers, the applicant amended the proposed opening times to 11:00am – 11:00pm Sunday - Thursday, but with an extension until 12pm on Fridays and Saturdays. Officers recommended approval of these opening times to Committee, but following deliberation the Committee resolved to limit opening hours to 11:00 - 23:00hrs Mondays – Sundays, Bank holidays and other public holidays.

Condition 7 attached to the recent consent restricts the use of the outside seating and decked area to 5.30pm - 8.00pm during the months of June-September, and condition 1 prevents the playing of amplified music within the building or anywhere else on the site. Condition 3 stipulated controls over external lighting including the switching off of lights (apaart from the safety light) at 10:00pm.

Consideration The main issue in the consideration of this application is the Impact on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

There are a number of dwellings within a 50m radius of the application site. Conditions attached to permissions 3/03/0528/FUL and 12/0883/FUL were imposed in order to protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby dwellings.

The current hours of use and the noise from the outside eating and drinking area, live music and odours from the site, have all resulted in a number of complaints and objections to this application from nearby residents. The site licence allows use of the premises from 11.00-24.00 Monday to Saturday, but the original planning consent limited the opening hours to 12:00 - 23:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 12:00 - 22:30 on Sundays, Bank holidays and other National Public Holidays. Although planning consent 12/0883 extended the opening times to 11:00 - 23:00 the agent has advised that the applicant is not minded to implement that consent.

While it is fully appreciated that this restaurant is in a rural area, outside the village envelope, it does provide an eating and drinking establishment for both local residents and visitors. The National Planning Policy Framework specifies that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas, in order to create jobs and prosperity and that sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments benefit rural areas, providing they respect the character of the countryside.

One of the key issues raised by local residents is the outside seating area and the noise generated by it. One of the core planning principles in the NPPF is to always seek ‘a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’. Policy DES2 of the East Dorset Local Plan specifies that ‘developments will not be permitted which will either impose or suffer unacceptable impacts on or from existing or likely future development or land uses in terms of noise, smell, safety, health, lighting, disturbance, traffic or other pollution’. Policy DES8 states that

111

development proposals should be compatible with or improve their surrounding in terms of, inter alia, visual impact and relationship to nearby properties.

The advice from the Council’s Senior Public Health Officer in connection with application 12/0883 was that as there is the potential for increased noise and disturbance to local residents, no music or entertainment should take place on the outside decked area. While the way in which the premises are used might result in noise nuisance complaints, it is appropriate to deal with this using other legislative powers, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Licensing Act 2003.

Opening the premises for business at 11.00 rather than 12.00 noon has not appeared to have caused any reported issues. Closing at 24.00 has resulted in complaints and objections to this application but these appear to mainly relate to playing of music and noise from the outside decked seating area. The officer recommendation in respect of application 12/0883 supported the alteration of the opening hours, Monday-Saturday from 11.00 to 24.00, 11.00 to 23.00 Sundays, Bank Holidays and other public holidays this support was on the basis that other conditions would prohibit/restrict the playing of music and restrict the service of food or drink outside the building, including on the decked area. The Committee resolved that the opening times should be restricted to 11:00 - 23:00 and noise and activity could be adequately controlled by the conditions (1, 3 and 7) outlined above.

It therefore remains the officer's view that having regard to the other restrictions imposed by conditions attached to application 12/0883/FUL and the controls exercised under the licensing restrictions, an appropriate level of control would exist to ensure that the extension of hours to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays would not significantly impact on the amenities of nearby properties. As consent ref 12/0883 has not been implemented this current application constitutes a stand alone consent and all the other conditions attached to the consent ref 12/0883 therefore need to be added to the current application.

On this basis the proposal is considered acceptable and complies with the NPPF, Policies DES2 and DES8 of the EDLP and Policy PC3 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.

Conclusion The principle of a restaurant in this location has already been established. The NPPF promotes economic growth in rural areas, in order to create jobs and prosperity and supports sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which benefit rural areas, providing they respect the character of the countryside. It is necessary to ensure that there is a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants. It is considered that this can be achieved by the existing planning conditions and reinforced using other legislation, if noise, odour or lighting becomes a statutory nuisance. The proposal complies with the NPPF, saved policies in the EDLP and policies in the emerging Core Strategy.

The application is recommended for approval.

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

112

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 No amplified music shall be played within the building or anywhere else on the site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies DES2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and policies in the Christchurch and East Dorset emerging Core Strategy.

2 The premises shall not be open for customers outside the following hours:- 11:00 -24:00hrs Fridays and Saturdays 11:00 - 23:00hrs Sundays - Thursdays, Bank Holidays and other Public Holidays. No customer shall be permitted to be on the premises outside these hours.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framewrok, Policies DES2 and DES8 of ther East Dorset Local Plan and the policies in the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.

3 The external lighting on the building shall be erected and maintained in accordance with approved drawing 1, Rev.B dated Sept. 2012 and approved details for the 8W IP65 Non Maintained Bulkhead, received on 19 October 2012. All external lighting shall be angled downwards so as to illuminate the outside of the building and associated parking areas only, and shall not illuminate any area outside the site. The lighting shall be switched off at 10.00pm each night with the execption of the bulkhead safety light which shall be switched off when the customers have left the premises.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the Green Belt and the Woodlands Area of Great Landscape Value, and in the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies LSCON2, DES2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and the Christchurch and East Dorset emerging Core Strategy.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Amendment Order or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, the premises shall only be used as restaurant and for no other purpose without express planning permission first being granted.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the use of the building in the interests of the rural character of the Green Belt and the Woodlands Area of Great Landscape Value and also in the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies LSCON2, DES2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and policies in the Christchurch and East Dorset emerging Core Strategy.

113

5 At all times an effective ventilation, filtration and odour control system shall operate and be maintained in order to remove cooking odours and prevent the emissions of odours outside the site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies DES2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and the Christchurch and East Dorset emerging Core Strategy.

6 The outside decked area and surrounding fencing shall be retained in accordance with drawing 1 Rev.B dated Sept. 2012, and shall not be extended or enclosed without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: In the interests of the rural character of the Green Belt and Woodlands Area of Great Landscape Value, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies LSCON2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and the Christchurch and East Dorset emerging Core Strategy.

7 The use of the outside seating and decked area shall be restricted to the months of June - September between the hours of 17.30 and 20.00 only.

Reason:To minimise the potential for noise and disturbance to nearby occupiers of residential property.

Informatives:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required..

Policy Considerations and Reasons

3. IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Plan & Council Objectives 3.1. To ensure East Dorset’s natural and built environment is well managed.

Legal 3.2. The Council is the Local Planning Authority and has delegated to the Planning Committee the responsibility for determining planning applications in

114

accordance with the provisions of the Local Plan, statutory and non-statutory guidance in the form of legislation and Planning Policy Statements.

Environmental 3.3. Any issues are contained within the body of this report.

Financial and Risk 3.4. The risk implications relate to the potential for judicial review or maladministration if the applications being reported have not been considered properly in a procedural sense or there is a substantial flaw in the consideration.

Equalities 3.5. Planning application determination requires a positive and questioning approach by the decision maker to equality matters. Where a particular issue requires a focused consideration there will be a reference in the particular report.

Background Papers: Planning application files relating to the above applications.

115