East Dorset District Council Planning Committee 28Th March, 2006

Everyone 7 128 1021 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 2 0 28, 29 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 NoEN1, EN2 28/03/ 2006 09:30: 01 C hief E xec uti ve Old 52 1 East Dorset District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Item No 7 28th March, 2006 Public Report

Schedule of Planning Applications

Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Contributors: Chief Executive Contact Officer: Michael Hirsh, Head of Planning & Building Control Financial Implications: None Council Priorities: EN1 EN2 Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Head of Planning and Building Control's recommendation.

1. Applicable Lead Member Area(s) 1.1 Environment. 2. Crime and Disorder – Section 17 Implications 2.1 Where there is a specific crime and disorder matter that is a material planning consideration, it will form part of the report related to the particular application. 3. Introduction

No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/05/0165/FUL 55 And R/O 57 Oaks Drive, St.Leonards, Ringwood 2 2. 3/05/1566/FUL 36, 40, 42 And 44 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset 6 3. 3/05/1643/FUL Maypole Cottage, Front Lane, Sturminster Marshall 14 4. 3/05/1645/LBC Maypole Cottage, Front Lane, Sturminster Marshall 16 5. 3/05/1648/FUL 163 Phelipps Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 17 6. 3/05/1695/FUL Plot 9 And 10, Virginia Close, Verwood 21 7. 3/05/1707/FUL 99 Wareham Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 24 8. 3/06/0013/FUL 51-52 New Borough Road, Wimborne, Dorset 30 9. 3/06/0026/FUL Habgoods Yard, Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen 34 10. 3/06/0048/FUL Land Adj Thorpe House, Horton, Wimborne 36 11. 3/06/0060/FUL Horton And Chalbury Village Hall, Horton Road, Horton 44 12. 3/06/0061/CON Horton And Chalbury Village Hall, Horton Road, Horton 51 13. 3/06/0064/FUL Land At Church Hill, Verwood, Dorset 55 14. 3/06/0071/FUL 31 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset 60 15. 3/06/0095/COU Barford Farm, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 61 16. 3/06/0111/FUL 28-29 Churchill Close, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 63 17. 3/06/0113/FUL Hill House, Sandleheath Road, Alderholt 66 18. 3/06/0130/FUL Rockstead, Bakers Lane, Holtwood 67 19. 3/06/0154/FUL Wimborne Kebab House, 17 Eastbrook Row, Crown Mead 69 20. 3/06/0192/FUL 13 Churchill Close, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 72 21. 3/06/0215/FUL Rushay House, Pentridge, Salisbury 74 22. 3/06/0233/FUL 63A Leigh Lane, Colehill, Wimborne 77

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/05/0165/FUL

Proposal: Erect 3 bungalows and 2 houses (Chalet Style) and construct vehicular access (demolish 55 Oaks Drive) and erect cat proof fence (As amended by plans and fence specification rec'd 06.10.2005). Site Address: 55 And R/O 57 Oaks Drive, St.Leonards, Ringwood, for Mr And Mrs Turner Constraints Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Urban Areas LP Site Notice expired: 6 March 2005 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 March 2005

St Leonards and St Ives Objection: Parish Comments: The proposal is within 400m of an SSSI.

Comments received 30.03.05: Following your response to our request for clarification of SSSI and adjacent development of the land we have the following additional objections to make: The proposal will result in excessive development of the proposed site. Within 400m of SSSI area Concerned over the possible additional tree loss Unacceptable access on a bend Concerns over access to site from Oaks Drive.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection CE1 CE5 CE4 CE7 CB7 I2 I4 Liaison Officer

English Nature Objects to the proposed development pending consideration of an appropriate assessment. May be possible to withdraw objection subject to mitigation.

EDDC Tree Section No objection. A full method statement is required.

Neighbour Comments: The Owner/Occupier 42A Oaks Objection: Drive, St Leonards Tree issues Unnecessary development Highway concerns Access issues.

Mr Richardson 66 Oaks Drive, Spoiling character of area. St Leonards Overloading infrastructure. Highway concerns.

Mrs Mathieson 38 Oaks Drive, Highway concerns. St Leonards Nature concerns. Change character of area.

2 Mr Mathieson 38 Oaks Drive, Highway concerns. St Leonards Nature concerns. Change character of area.

Mrs Rickson Willowdene, 43 Highway concerns. Oaks Drive Cause noise and disruption to frighten away the existing wildlife, adj SSSI.

Mr And Mrs Bishton 28 Oaks Out of keeping with the character of the area. Drive, St Leonards Lack of privacy. Highway concerns.

M A Wicken 35 Oaks Drive, St Objection: Leonards Highway concerns; Safety issues Out of character Contradictive to the deeds of our properties.

Daphne Clarke 5 Rowan Close, Exceeds planning density for this area. St. Leonards Tree concerns. Loss of privacy and amenities. Highway concerns.

Mr And Mrs Connor 59 Oaks Objection: Drive, St.Leonards/st.Ives Highway concerns Access issues Overdevelopment Out of character Drainage issues Nature conservation area Tree issues. comments rcvd 2.3.06 out of character previous comments still stand

Mrs Everett 42 Oaks Drive, Out of character with area. St.Leonards/st.Ives Highway concerns. Nature concerns.

Mr Gairn 3 Rowan Close, St. Exceeds planning density for this area. Leonards Tree concerns. Loss of privacy and amenities. Highway concerns.

Mr And Mrs G Harris 53 Oaks No Objection Drive, St.Leonards/st.Ives

Mrs North 1 Rowan Close, St Objection: Leonards Surface water, drainage and Sewer concerns Access issues Highway concerns Tree concerns.

Officers Report:

This application is on the agenda because not all the concerns of the Parish Council are reflected in the recommendation, because there are more than four objections and by virtue of the issues involved in the consideration of this application following extensive negotiations.

This application for five dwellings is on an almost triangular shaped site which has a narrow frontage whilst becoming increasingly wider towards the rear. The site comprises 55 Oaks Drive (which will be replaced) and the garden of 57 Oaks Drive. The access will be provided between the replaced No 55 and No 57. It lies on the outside of one of the bends in Oaks Drive. It shares some similarities with the site to the rear of 21-25 Oaks Drive which has been developed with bungalows following a successful appeal which resulted in the development being increased from the four granted by the Local Planning Authority to six bungalows. The particular difference, however, is that 23 Oaks Drive was demolished to make way for the driveway which successfully provided sufficient space to respect the amenities of the adjacent properties.

The size and shape of the plot and the amount of boundary screening reduces the impact on the amenities of occupiers of adjacent dwellings. It also results in the development of the site having a relatively limited impact on the street scene and the character of the area.

A 2.5 m. cat-proof fence is proposed along the northern and western boundaries of the site. This is proposed because the site is adjacent to Lions Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which has a European designation with the objective of overcoming the almost inevitable objection of English Nature to residential development in close proximity to a SSSI. However, it only bounds the application site and cats could gain access to the SSSI from the adjacent properties. Ultra-sonic cat scarers are proposed at the extremities of the fence but it is not known how efficient they are. In these circumstances there is still an objection from English Nature.

A contribution of £5000 is being offered to the Herpetological Conservation Trust to add heathland adjacent to the SSSI. However, the applicant has not secured the necessary agreement of these landowners to achieve this intention as a means of mitigating the impact of the development.

A local resident has suggested that there are badgers in the vicinity of the application site and the need for a badger survey to be carried out by the applicant has been identified.

This type of backland development does pose problems which are particularly related to the impact on the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings as a result of the use of the access and the physical impact on the outlook from the existing dwellings on the road frontage. In this case the existing vegetation adjacent to the access in the front garden of No. 57 will be retained and the replacement dwelling on the site of No 55 is designed so that its occupiers would not be unduly affected by use of the access.

The concerns of local residents are readily understood. Notwithstanding some recent encouraging dismissals of backland development appeals elsewhere in the district, the above mentioned decision and also an allowed appeal for two bungalows to the rear of Nos. 24-26 Oaks Drive does leave the Authority in a position on this particular site where a refusal of planning permission for reasons not connected to nature conservation matters would be difficult to justify.

Notwithstanding the measures being proposed to address the nature conservation issues they do not overcome the concerns of English Nature and a refusal of planning permission is therefore recommended.

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

Reasons:-

1 The site lies close to the Lions Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This site is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The proximity of these European sites (SPA and SAC) means that determination of this application must be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations 1994, in particular Regulations 48 and 49. The proposal is for four additional dwellings. The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitats Regulations that the proposals will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland. The Local Planning Authority, in carrying out an Appropriate Assessment, considers that the proposed development would in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to heathland, be likely to have a significant effect on the SPA and SAC features. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to the recommendation of the Bern Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset heathlands as well as Environment policies A, B, C and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and policies NCON1 and NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan which seek to restrict developments which would result in the potential for increased use of, and damage to, nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest and particularly heathlands with a European designation.

2 The application is not accompanied by a badger survey and the erection of a considerable length of fence would prevent the movement of badgers along their trails should they exist in this area. Any disruption to, or disturbance of, the habitat of a protected species is contrary to Environment policy D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and policy NCON1 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Informatives:

1 The Local Planning Authority has taken into account the proposed heathland mitigation measures but the proposed fence is unlikely to prevent all cat movements. The offer of a financial contribution to the Herpetological Conservation Trust (HCT) is not accompanied by any indication as to how additional land could be acquired from third parties to extend the heathland.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

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

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/05/1566/FUL

5 Proposal: Demolition of Existing and Erection of 12 Dwellings, Associated Garages, Car Parking, Modification of Existing Access and Enlargement of Car Park to Bethel. Additional info rcv'd 13.12.05 Additional info rcv'd 21.12.05 Additional info rcv'd 24.01.06 Amended by plans rcv'd 28.02.06 Site Address: 36, 40, 42 And 44 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset, for Archstone Lifestyle Homes Ltd Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Urban Areas LP Sites of Special Scientific Interest LP Open Space/Recreational Area LP New Road Construction/Improvement LP Site Notice expired: 30 December 2005 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 22 December 2005

Verwood Town Council Objection: Proximity to SSSI, overdevelopment, highway Comments: problems, detrimental to the street scene and drainage problems.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Before I can make my formal recommendation the Liaison Officer following amendment should be noted: 1. The proposed turning area is inadequate for refuse vehicles. 2. The highway adjacent to plot 1 should provide a 0.5m construction width.

EDDC Tree Section Recommends the following conditions:

1/ The protection of the trees on site shall be carried out in accordance with the Barrell Treecare method statement reference RD402AIA-AMS4-DC dated 21 November 2005. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the planning authority.

2/ Notwithstanding the Barrell Treecare method statement, a schedule of construction will be drawn up to simplify and clarify the Barrell method statement. It must be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place on site. The schedule of construction must be fully complied with and completed in full, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

3/ Details of any bin store construction shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority before any development of the site, the construction must take into account the adjacent preserved trees and their rooting systems.

6 Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged.

27th Feb 06 No objection to the proposed amendments provided they do not conflict with the up to date tree protection plan.

EDDC Engineers Section No objections

English Nature Accept findings of protected species survey, Bat roost at 36 shall be treated as active and treated accordingly. Conditions should be imposed relating to a) Defra license. b) Temporary bat roost c) Before April make 36 less suitable or attractive to bats. d) Prior to demolition, a further survey be undertaken. If bats found, contact English Nature. e) New dwellings should have bat access points and at least one permanent roosting opportunity.

Wessex Water Services Ltd No objection in principle. Suggest informatives relating to easement, connection and protection/maintenance of existing systems on site.

East Dorset Countryside No objection Management Service

EDDC Engineers Section No objection

County Highways Development No objection, subject to conditions. Liaison Officer

EDDC Tree Section

Neighbour Comments: Mr K T Towsey 34 Ringwood Object: Road, Verwood Overlooking Encroaches on light and privacy Concerns over the drainage and flow of surface water

Mr And Mrs R Day 59 Great Concern Ringwood Road, Verwood Traffic Concerns Verwood is populated enough

Mr N M L Hunt St Fagans, 48 Object: Ringwood Road App form not completed correctly Highway safety Design/Car parking Surface water disposal SSSi

Officers Report: This application was deferred from Committee on 7 March to enable officers to continue negotiation with English Nature.

The application is before Members as the observations of the Town Council conflict with your officers’ recommendation.

The proposal – This development is a full submission for both the erection of 12 dwellings including garaging and car parking, and amendments to the access and the provision of additional car parking spaces for the Bethel Chapel.

The application drawings indicate that there will be 5 detached dwellings, 2 pairs of semi- detached houses, and a terrace of 3 dwellings. The frontage comprises 2 of the detached dwellings. Parking is shown within curtilage apart from the 3 terraced dwellings, where the parking is at the front of the dwellings. The existing access for the chapel is to be retained serving 8 car parking spaces.

There are a number of fine trees both within the site and adjacent to its boundaries. The site is covered by 3 Tree Preservation Orders. The 2 oak trees within the site are covered individually, and the area of trees to the rear boundary are also protected.

Planning History - There is a planning history pertaining to the site over the last 2 years, but on each occasion the applications have been withdrawn. However, there numbers are as follows;

3/04/1470/FUL – Erection of 13 dwellings – Withdrawn 3/05/0050/FUL - Erection of 13 dwellings – Withdrawn 3/05/0051/COU – Change of use of land for use as car park for chapel – Withdrawn 3/05/0706/COU - Change of use of land for use as car park for chapel – Withdrawn 3/05/0709/FUL - Erection of 11 dwellings – Withdrawn

Policy Framework

The site is within the urban area of Verwood as defined in the East Dorset Local Plan.

National - The proposal is covered by National guidance contained within PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) and PPG3 Housing (2000).

Local - The site is covered by the Bournemouth, Dorset & Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan which was adopted in January 2002. In particular, Policies DES8, HODEV1, NCON1, NCON3, DES12, V28 and OBLIG1 apply.

Identification and Assessment of issues

The issues that relate to this full application are; a) Principle of development b) Design/external appearance/layout c) Density d) Trees, landscaping and boundary treatment e) Drainage f) Visibility splays/access g) SSSI h) Wildlife - bats i) Contributions

Principle of development – The site lies within the built limits of Verwood, where the development or redevelopment of sites is, in principle acceptable, subject to normal

8 development control criteria. The site, forming the curtilages of existing residential property, is classified as previously developed, or brownfield, land, where the Government, in its advice contained in both PPS1 and PPG3 makes it clear that any development should make the best use of land. That advice however does temper the overall encouragement of such development, with the underlying principal that the character of an area is important and should not be prejudiced by development.

Design/external appearance/layout - The siting of the dwellings has to a great extent been determined by the need to protect the existing trees on site, provide additional planting and cater for the 2 easements which cross the site. The layout is considered to provide an acceptable residential environment for the proposed residents and at the same time because of the lower densities towards the front (north) of the site, an acceptable impact on the both the street and the character of the surrounding area. The adjoining dwellings and occupiers will be affected to some extent, merely because development is proposed where at present there is none. Where there is potential for overlooking, for example Plot 12 and its relationship to the dwellings to the south (Hainault Drive), the design is such to preclude 1st floor windows. To secure that this is protected in the future, a condition could be applied. It is considered that the proposed designs are acceptable and will not jar with surrounding development. The choice of materials will be important here and can be conditioned. The Town Council suggest that the development will be detrimental to the street scene, and whilst the issue itself is particularly important, it is not considered that material harm will be caused.

Density – Government advice makes it clear that development should be undertaken at higher densities than have traditionally been utilised, but that the development itself should not harm the intrinsic character of an area. It is considered that the layout and density of this development is of a nature and level that does not harm the character of the area. Whilst it is higher than the existing general density, the juxtaposition of dwellings, particularly the use of detached dwellings to the frontage, where detached dwellings are the norm, reduces the visual impact of the development to an acceptable level. The Town Council suggest that this is an overdevelopment of the site. Having regard to the points raised above, it is not considered that material harm will be caused.

Trees, Landscaping and boundary treatment – With the preserved trees on this site, the satisfactory resolution of the potential conflict between the trees and the development was one of the most important issues in determining the layout. In recognition of that, the applicants have submitted a ‘method statement’ which forms part of the application. This has been examined in detail and your officers are content that there will be no adverse impact on the trees either by the buildings itself or the accesses and parking areas which serve them. There is only limited opportunity for new tree planting but some additional planting is proposed on the frontage and on the boundary with 46 Ringwood Road and also around the new road access. The landscaping proposals are considered to be acceptable.

Drainage – Having regard to the issues raised by local people regarding drainage, a drainage plan has been submitted and referred to the drainage section which has confirmed that they are acceptable. Some of these works are off site, so a ‘Grampian’ style pre- commencement condition would need to be imposed if permission is granted.

Visibility splays/access – The details accord with the requirements of the Highway Authority. Minor amendments have been requested which do not limit the ability to determine the proposals. These relate to issues more applicable to the adoption of the road. Further comments are expected from the Highway Authority regarding conditions/informatives.

9 SSSI – The site adjoins Budgens Copse and Meadows which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Consultations have taken place regarding both drainage and access. The drainage scheme is acceptable and does not prejudice nature interests, however, the matter of access can only be addressed by way of a condition. Such a condition will prevent access from the rear gardens of the properties to the SSSI.

Wildlife – English Nature have made representations regarding the presence of bats on site. It is considered that the issue can be satisfactorily dealt with by way of conditions and informatives. It is important that no works take place on site, including works for clearance or demolition until a ‘method statement, is agreed.

Contributions – The land is within the Verwood area where contributions are requested to assist with infrastructure provision. The overall application site area is 0.52ha, which would under normal circumstances lock into the need to provide social housing as part of the scheme. However, the site is a mixed use, the Bethel Chapel element having been specifically included at the behest of your officers. The net housing area is 0.4696ha. It is felt that it would be unreasonable to invoke the social housing provision on that basis. Similarly, the ‘Verwood contribution’ should be calculated on that lesser area. The applicants are willing to make the appropriate contribution by way of the completion of an Obligation under Section 106 of the Act. This is acceptable.

Conclusions – As the ‘planning history’ implies, your officers have been negotiating a development of this site for some time. Many amendments have been made, which improve layout, preserve trees or remove overlooking concerns. Whilst some local people and the Town Council retain their objections to this development, your officers consider that the details submitted are acceptable. Subject to the receipt of any additional conditions of the Highways Officer and the required ‘Verwood Contributions’. (Either directly or by way of 106 Agreement.)

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

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

3 Plans and particulars showing the alignment height and materials of all walls and fences and other means of enclosure, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved. Such details as may be agreed shall be implemented in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the building to which these elements relate, maintained for a period of five years and any structural or

10 decorative defect appearing during this period shall be rectified and the enclosure shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the enclosure details of the proposal and its implementation and retention.

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

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

5 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, if any, thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979), immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

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

6 The proposal for the landscaping of the site, as shown on the submitted plans, including the planting of additional trees and shrubs, and the provision of walls and fences, shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, (in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979)) immediately following commencement of the development. Any plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be duly replaced and the whole scheme thereafter 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.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended, or any reenactment of that order, the agreed fencing to the rear gardens of Plots 7-12 shall be retained and no access shall be formed or created to the adjoining SSSI at Budgens Copse.

Reason - To avoid undue harm being caused to nature conservation interests in accordance with policies NCON1 and NCON2 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

11 8 The protection of the trees on site shall be carried out in accordance with the Barrell Treecare method statement reference RD402AIA-AMS4-DC dated 21 November 2005. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the planning authority.

Reason - To avoid harm to the trees on site in accordance with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan

9 Notwithstanding the Barrell Treecare method statement, a schedule of construction shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place on site. The schedule of construction must be fully complied with and completed in full, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - To avoid harm being caused to the trees on site, in accordance with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

10 Notwithstanding the permitted details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the off site surface water drainage proposals shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of development.

Reason - To avoid harm to the integrity of the adjoining SSSI in accordance with policies NCON1 and NCON3 of the East Dorset local plan.

11 Before any works or development, including works for site clearance or demolition, take place on the site, a method statement for dealing with bats on site, both at present and in the future, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be implemented in full.

Reason - In the interests of nature conservation, in accord with policies NCON1 and NCON3 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

12 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment no further windows or doors shall be constructed in the southern elevation (such expression to include the roof and wall) of the building hereby permitted, shown as Plot 12, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority on an application on that behalf.

Reason: To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties.

13 Before any foundation of any individual building is dug on land forming the subject of this application, a new estate road shall be constructed from the carriageway of the existing highway to the site of that building. The minimum requirements for this estate road shall be concrete foundations to kerb, hardcore laid level to the top of the kerb foundations and suitably blinded, soil and surface water drainage laid complete with road gullies and gratings all to an approved specification. No building shall be occupied until such time as the carriageway and footway/ footpath have been constructed up to and including base course surfacing complete with kerbing and street lighting to the approved specification from the site of the building to the existing adopted highway.

Reason: To ensure that individual dwellings or buildings are accurately set out in accordance with the approved layout and an adequate means of access is available when the dwelling or building is under construction and when it is occupied.

14 Within a period of two years (or such period as may be defined in any separate Agreement concluded with the Local Highway Authority pursuant to Section 38 Highway Act 1980), or within six months of the completion of 75% of the buildings if this is sooner, completion of the roadworks shall occur. This will entail the making good of works previously undertaken and the final surfacing, grassing and landscaping all to the approved specification. (Nothing in this condition shall conflict with any phasing scheme in which respect it will be interpreted as applying to a particular phase).

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and a well co-ordinated development.

15 The retention or siting of any poles, lighting columns or similar obstructions in the visibility splays shall not be permitted unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with Local Highway Authority before work commences.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

16 A plan shall be submitted showing details of highway drainage and disposal to the specification and satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. All works shown thereon shall be completed before any foundation of any individual building is dug on land forming the subject of this application.

Reason: To ensure the well-planned construction of the road.

17 The visibility splays shall be laid out and the first 10 metres of the estate road measured from the adopted highway, Ringwood Road, shall be constructed up to and including the base course construction of the carriageway and footways, before any other site operations commence.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Informatives:

1 The applicant is advised to contact the East Dorset Countryside management service prior to the commencement of works at the site, in order to ensure that the off site drainage works can be implemented, and that the boundary with the SSSI is suitably managed.

2 The applicant is advised to contact Wessex Water and the Land Drainage Authority before any development commences to ensure the efficacy of any land drainage systems and/or connections to existing systems.

3 Public foul and surface water sewers cross this site. Before any works take place on the site, the developer is advised to contact Wessex Water to resolve any issues relating to maintenance/protection and easement issues.

13 4 Having regard to the presence of a bat roost on site and the conditions set out above, before any works take place, a DEFRA license must be obtained and any contact with the bats should be carried out only by a licensed bat worker.

5 The Local Planning Authority, in consideration of conditions relating to fencing and landscaping, have been advised by English Nature the boundary between the site and the SSSI to be formed by a native species hedge with, on the application site side of the hedge, a 2.2m high close boarded fence.

6 The attention of the developer is drawn to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, particularly in relation to bats and nesting birds.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/05/1643/FUL

Proposal: Retain Fence and Gate (Retrospective)

Site Address: Maypole Cottage, Front Lane, Sturminster Marshall, for H.W Beaves Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Site Notice expired: 2 April 2006 Advert expired: 7 April 2006 Nbr-Nfn expired: 29 March 2006

Sturminster Marshall Parish To be reported. Council Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Design And Conservation

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

This retrospective planning application was submitted after the Listed Building application (ref: 05/1645) also on this agenda, and is still awaiting the expiry of publicity on 7th April 2006.

The application is for a line of fencing, which comes before Members as the recommendation is likely to be contrary to the comments of the Parish Council as the Parish object to Listed Building application. The Parish Council’s concerns regarding the Listed building application

14 were that the stark fence spoils the openness of a green public footpath in a Conservation Area.

There was also one letter of objection associated with the Listed Building Application and it is anticipated that this will be repeated with regard to this planning application. That objection expressed concern that the fence fails to recognise the historical significance of this former sheep drove lined by hedges, fails to respect the appearance of the surroundings, sets an unwelcome precedent; and should be set back and have a hedge replanted in front.

The fence that has been constructed runs for a stretch of about 13 metres out of the overall 50 metre length of footpath. On the opposite side the footpath is open and views across the orchard and back garden of Church Cottage, edged by metal railings of about 1 metre in height. The other side of the footpath is edged by the side wall of Maypole Cottage and the hedge alongside the rear garden of Melstock House.

The stretch of fencing occupies less than a third of one side of the footpath in the central section set back from both Front and Back Lane. The fence can be viewed from the Conservation Area, in particular from across Maypole Green. It does appear suburban in relation to the rural character of the 17th Century listed building, but it is considered that it does not unduly alter the character of the area because it is a small section of fencing along the overall footpath

Whilst it is regrettable that the hedge was replaced with fencing, prior to an application being sought, it is not considered that the harm caused would make it expedient to require its removal and repositioning and a replant of the hedge in front of it. It could blend in better with the rural character, if stained dark green; and this could be required by planning condition.

Subject to no materially new objections being received within the remainder of the consultation period.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The fence shall be painted in a dark green stain within one month of this decision and shall thereafter be retained in that finish. Reason: To ensure it blends into the landscaped context and with the character of the Conservation Area.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/05/1645/LBC

Proposal: Retain Fence and Gate Previously Erected without Consent

Site Address: Maypole Cottage, Front Lane, Sturminster Marshall, for H.W Beaves Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone

15 Site Notice expired: 8 March 2006 Advert expired: 10 March 2006 Nbr-Nfn expired: 1 March 2006

Sturminster Marshall Parish Objection Council Comments: The erection of such a stark fence spoils the openness of a public footpath which was 'green' in a conservation area.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Design And If we were asked to comment on this application as if it Conservation were a non-retrospective proposal, our advice would be that the fence should be set back 600mm-750mm from the current line and a hedge of hornbeam, quickthorn or holly planted in front. This would maintain the soft eastern side of the footpath and comprise a more appropriate rural boundary to the c17th century listed building. The close boarded fence appears suburban and out of character with the old building.

Neighbour Comments: Mrs Kenny Cherry Cottage, objection Front Lane serious impact on appearance of surrounding area precedent set sending the wrong message

Officers Report:

This Listed Building application is a retrospective application for a line of fencing. It comes before Members as the recommendation is contrary to the comments of the Parish Council.

The Parish object to the stark fence which spoils the openness of a green public footpath in a Conservation Area. There is also one letter of objection concerned that the fence fails to recognise the historical significance of this former sheep drove lined by hedges, fails to respect the appearance of the surroundings, sets an unwelcome precedent; and should be set back and have a hedge replanted in front.

The fence that has been constructed runs for a stretch of about 13 metres out of the overall 50 metre length of footpath which is edged by the side wall of Maypole Cottage and the hedge alongside the rear garden of Melstock House. It does appear suburban in relation to the rural character of the 17th Century listed building, but it is considered that it does not unduly alter the character of the area because it is a small section of fencing along the overall footpath

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

16 1 The fence shall be painted in a dark green stain within one month of this decision and shall thereafter be retained in that finish. Reason: To ensure the character of the Listed Building is retained.

Informatives:

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/05/1648/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Existing Side Extension and Create New End of Terrace Dwelling With Associated Parking Site Address: 163 Phelipps Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Jasmine Developments Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Site Notice expired: 11 February 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 February 2006

Corfe Mullen Parish Council Objection on the following grounds: The access, which Comments: has been revised from previous applications, is still impractical giving insufficient car parking and turning facilities. The proposal is still considered by the parish council to be overdevelopment of the plot. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy DES8 of the local plan and policy DES12.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No Objection subject to conditions Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments: Mr And Mrs New 14 Brownsea Objection: Avenue, Corfe Mullen Concerns over the placement of the parking spaces. Surface water concerns Noise and pollution concerns Overlooking Objection:RCVD 7.3.06 Concerns over the placement of the parking spaces. Noise and pollution concerns Overlooking

Mr Peter Holdaway 169 Objection

17 Phelipps Road, Corfe Mullen Concerns over Traffic, Parking Concerns over drainage problems

Officers Report:

The site is an extended terraced property with an integral garage at the end of a cul-de-sac in Phelipps Road.

The application seeks permission to demolish an existing two-storey side extension to the side of no. 163 Phelipps Road and erect a two-storey dwelling with associated parking to the front.

An earlier application for a new end of terrace dwelling (3/04/1423) was refused planning permission in February 2005 on highway grounds only. The refusal reflects the Council’s concern that the use of the access and parking area serving the proposed development would be likely to cause conflicting traffic movements close to the existing public footway network, resulting in additional hazard and inconvenience to all users of the footway and highways.

The application was the subject of an appeal. Whilst the Inspector considered the danger to pedestrians to be overstated, he noted that:

“The use of the proposed parking spaces would involve the crossing of part of a grassed amenity space which contains a street light and a semi-mature tree…. the tree is of particular visual importance in surroundings where such features are generally lacking… bearing in mind the limited depth of the garden, vehicular access to the two parking spaces would, in my judgement, be extremely difficult and, in the case of that nearest the southern boundary, more or less impossible without relocation of the street light and without undue risk of damage to the tree trunk.”

The appeal was dismissed.

The current application seeks to overcome the Inspector’s concern by revising the access arrangements.

No. 163, Phelipps Road has a plot size roughly twice that of the adjoining terraced properties. Adjacent to the southern boundary of the site is a narrow pedestrian walkway giving access to the rear gardens and to a service road which joins Wareham Road.

Most of the properties within this part of Phelipps Road have integral garages which face onto the turning head.

The proposed dwelling will not have an integral garage like most of the dwellings in this part of Phelipps Road. However it will have two car parking spaces to the front, which utilises the existing access via an extended dropped kerb over the existing public highway, to provide a new shared access. The new access arrangements no longer requires vehicular access over the turning head and across the grassed amenity space. As a consequence, the previous problems relating to the tree and street light are eliminated.

No. 163 has an integral garage. If this application is approved then any consent should be conditioned to ensure that the garage is retained and that the proposed facilities for the on- site parking of motor vehicles shall be provided and retained, so not to conflict with the proposed parking facilities of the adjoining properties.

18 Whilst the new spaces would abut an existing walkway leading to a service road to the rear, Dorset County Highways consider the current parking and manoeuvring as shown on the submitted plans to be satisfactory and will not conflict with vehicle movements of the neighbouring properties.

The site currently has a two storey extension to the side. PPS1, PPG3 and HODEV2 advocate making the best use of previously developed land, to provide additional housing in urban areas in sustainable locations. The creation of an additional independent dwelling in this location would accord with National guidance and local plan policies, providing the visual impact and impact on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties is also acceptable.

The proposed dwelling will be slightly narrower at 5.3m width than no.163 which has a width of 6.1m. The depth and height will be the same as No.163 and therefore generally in keeping with the scale of the adjoining terraced properties within this road. The proposed development will be sited in the same plot size as no.163. The visual impact of the proposal in the street scene is therefore considered to be acceptable.

The occupiers of 14 Brownsea Avenue, a detached chalet-style dwelling to the south of the proposed site, have raised concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy resulting from this proposal. However there will be no greater impact in terms of overlooking than the existing extension. It should also be noted that the window on the first floor side elevation serving the hall is to be obscure glazed. Whilst the new dwelling is to be sited closer to the bungalow than the existing, it is not considered to have an adverse impact on that property. The relationship with that property was not an issue raised by the Inspector at appeal. There have been several other letters of objection from nearby residents concerning parking, traffic generation, access, over development and overlooking/loss of privacy. However, it is considered that there will be no material increase in overlooking or loss of privacy which will affect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. The design, scale and position of the proposed dwelling are considered appropriate and will ensure that the appearance of the street scene is not harmed.

The proposal is considered to accord with relevant National guidance and Local Plan policies as set out above and subject to appropriate conditions, the application 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 materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the development, hereby permitted, shall be identical in every respect to those of the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

3 The proposed facilities for the on-site parking of motor vehicles shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to use of the proposed development, and thereafter so retained.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development at all times in the interests of highway safety.

4 Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the garage belonging to the parent property no. 163 Phelipps Road, shall be retained for this purpose and shall not be converted to any other domestic accommodation without express planning permission first being obtained. Reason: To ensure provision of adequate off-street parking facilities within the site due to its position adjacent to the turning head and the lack of on street parking available in accordance with Policy DES12 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

5 Plans and particulars showing the alignment height and materials of all walls and fences and other means of enclosure, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved. Such details as may be agreed shall be implemented in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the building to which these elements relate, maintained for a period of five years and any structural or decorative defect appearing during this period shall be rectified and the enclosure shall thereafter be retained.

Reason; In order that the Council may be satisfied with the enclosure details of the proposal and its implementation and retention.

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, no extensions to the dwellings hereby permitted shall be constructed without express planning permission first being obtained. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the amount of development on the site in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties, due to the constrained nature of the site, in accordance with Policy DES8 (para. 6.300) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

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

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons

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

20 Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: HODEV2 DES8 DES12

Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/05/1695/FUL

Proposal: Erection of 4 Semi Detached Dwellings, Together with Associated Garages and Parking, (Instead of 2 Detached Dwellings Amendment to Part of Scheme Approved Under REF: 3/05/0164/FUL). Site Address: Plot 9 And 10, Virginia Close, Verwood, for Hillmark Homes Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Urban Areas LP Site Notice expired: 4 February 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 2 February 2006

Verwood Town Council No objection Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection, subject to the same conditions previously Liaison Officer recommended for previous application 3/05/0164.

EDDC Tree Section No arboricultural objections.

Neighbour Comments: Mr And Mrs Pitt 28 Ashley Object Drive South, Ashley Heath Parking concerns Access Concerns

Officers Report:

Planning history and description of proposal.

Planning permission was granted under reference 3/05/0164/FUL for the redevelopment of the site of Virginia for six detached and four semi-detached dwellings, following the completion of a Section 106 agreement for the payment of contributions under Policy OBLIG1 of the East Dorset Local Plan. This redevelopment is currently underway and some of the dwellings have been sold and are occupied. This latest application is to vary Plots 9 and 10 to erect four semi-detached dwellings in place of two detached dwellings approved. The redevelopment of the adjacent site at number 168A Ringwood Road by the erection of three detached dwellings has also been granted (ref: 3/05/0864/FUL) following a site visit, subject to a legal agreement securing contributions under policy OBLIG1 of the East Dorset Local Plan. This legal agreement is expected to be completed shortly. This adjacent application is to be accessed through the ‘Virginia’ site and was submitted by the same applicants, Hillmark Homes. The principle of developing this site has already been established. Therefore, the issues in considering this latest application are: the density of development, the visual impact of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings, the impact on nearby dwellings, the impact on highway safety and the issue of affordable housing provision raised by the development of the Virginia site and linked site of 168a Ringwood Road.

Density:

21 The site is within the defined urban area, where making the best use of previously developed land is in accordance with National and local guidance. Therefore, the increased density is considered acceptable, subject to the criteria set out in policy DES8 of the EDLP.

Visual Impact:

Plots 9 and 10 are sited on the south east part of the site, adjacent to the southern side of the access road as it enters the site. The approved scheme is for two no. three-bed detached properties with detached garages. This proposal is for four no. three-bed semi- detached properties, with garages, with a central access drive serving three of the properties, with the fourth being accessed off the turning head. The footprint of the buildings has been increased slightly and the ridge height also increased to make them full two-storey. This layout still allows for sufficient space around the buildings, room for landscaping and are similar in design to the semi-detached dwellings already built on plots 3 and 4, and 7 and 8. The visual impact is considered acceptable.

Impact on nearby dwellings:

The only windows in the side elevations serve the toilets and will be obscure glazed. No overlooking will result from this proposal. There will be no material impact in terms of loss of light from these amendments on the dwellings already constructed or under construction on the rest of the development.

Highways:

Although there will now be four dwellings instead of two on this part of the site, the material increase in traffic generation will not be significant. No Highway objection has been raised to this proposal, subject to appropriate conditions.

Infrastructure Contribution:

Although this application will result in a net gain of two further dwellings on the site, a contribution was paid on a per hectare basis for the previous application, under Policy OBLIG1 of the EDLP. Therefore, this site has been fully paid for and no further contribution is payable in respect of this application.

Affordable Housing:

There is a significant problem in relation to the provision of affordable housing within East Dorset, for which there is a large need but very little opportunity to provide additional properties. Policy HODEV5 of the EDLP, sets out the requirement to secure affordable housing provision on sites of 0.5ha or more in size or where 15 or more dwellings are to be built, and where they are in a sustainable location. On the 19 September the Council approved a final version of the Affordable and Special Needs Housing and Provision of Small Dwellings Supplementary Planning Guidance. This increased the expected provision of affordable housing on suitable sites from 30%-35% to 40%.

In this case, the alteration of two of the dwellings from detached to semi-detached, to create four dwellings, brings the cumulative total number of dwellings on the ‘Virginia’ site and number 168a Ringwood Road, to 15. Although the applications for the Virginia site and number 168A were applied for separately, they clearly constitute one planning unit, being built by the same developer. This total number of 15 units triggers a requirement for affordable housing provision. The applicant has been advised of this requirement and the

22 reasons behind it. However, the applicant has declined to enter into a legal agreement to secure this. The applicant has argued that the Virginia site is separate from the 168A Ringwood Road site, even though it is utilising the same access. They also contend that the provision of four semi-detached units will provide lower-cost housing for first time buyers, which makes better use of the site than the two detached dwellings which have already been approved. However, these are still three-bed dwellings which are proposed and can not be considered as affordable housing for the purposes of Policy HODEV5 of the EDLP. This is clearly a single planning unit, where the development shares a single access and the same developer is involved. Members will be aware that similar issues were raised by the Council in the recent Sheridan Way appeal at Sturminster Marshall where the Inspector supported the Council’s stance on this issue. Failure to provide affordable housing would be contrary to Policy HODEV5 and National Planning Policy as set out in Planning Policy Guidance 3 (PPG3) and emerging guidance in the Consultation Paper on Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3).

Conclusions

It is considered that failure to make provision for affordable housing on this site would be to the detriment of meeting the housing needs of the District, contrary to Policy HODEV5 of the EDLP and national guidance set out in PPG3 and draft PPS3.

Recommendation

This application is therefore recommended for refusal.

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

Reasons:-

1 The proposed development, together with the linked adjacent site at number 168A Ringwood Road, brings the total number of units being built on the site to 15, which triggers a requirement for 40% on-site affordable housing provision. The applicant is unwilling to enter into a legal agreement to secure affordable housing on the site. Failure to make provision for affordable housing on this site would be to the detriment of meeting the housing needs of the District, contrary to Policy HODEV5 of the East Dorset Local Plan, as amplified in Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 28 ‘Affordable and Special Needs Housing and the Provision of Small Dwellings Dec. 2005’, and national guidance set out in PPG3 and draft PPS3.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/05/1707/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Existing Property and Erect Three Dwellings as amended by plans received 20.02.2006 and 23.02.2006

23 Site Address: 99 Wareham Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Fulcrum (Wessex) Limited Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Water Main Site Notice expired: 29 January 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 2 February 2006

Corfe Mullen Parish Council Objection on the following grounds: The proposed access Comments: from Wareham Road would result in excessive traffic noise, resulting in loss of amenity to numbers 97A and 99A. The parish council remains concerned about the topography of this sloping site and its suitability for development, of particular concern is the water table, and a survey should be undertaken to establish whether there could be flooding issues. The removal of the trees on the site is highly regrettable.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection, subject to the same conditions previously Liaison Officer recommended for application number 3/2005/0252.

Wessex Water Services Ltd The development is located within a foul sewered area. It will be necessary for the developer to agree a point of connection onto the system for the satisfactory disposal of foul flows generated by the proposal. This can be agreed at the detailed design stage.

The developer has proposed to dispose of surface water to a soakaway. It is advised that your council should be satisfied with any arrangement for the satisfactory disposal of surface water from the proposal.

According to our records, there is a public foul sewer crossing the site. Please find enclosed a copy of our sewer records indicating the approximate position of the apparatus. Wessex Water normally requires a minimum, three-metre, easement width on either side of its apparatus, for the purpose of maintenance and repair. Diversion or protection works may need to be agreed.

It is further recommended that a condition or informative is placed on any consent to require the developer to protect the integrity of Wessex systems and agree prior to the commencement of works on site, any arrangements for the protection of infrastructure crossing the site. The developer must agree in writing prior to the commencement of works on site, any arrangements for the protection of our infrastructure crossing the site.

With respect to water supply, there are water mains within the vicinity of the proposal. Again, connection can be agreed at the design stage.

24 It is recommended that the developer should agree with Wessex Water, prior to the commencement of any works on site, a connection to Wessex Water infrastructure.

Neighbour Comments: Mr G R And Mrs P R Brown Object: 97A Wareham Road, Corfe Increase in traffic Mullen

Mr And Mrs Mills 99A Wareham Objection Road, Corfe Mullen Concerns about gable windows on plot one Over looking

Mr And Mrs Foot 114 Wareham Concerned Road, Corfe Mullen Increased Traffic concerns Access concerns Loss of view concerns

Mr J Whitmarsh 112 Wareham Object: Road, Corfe Mullen Increase in traffic

Officers Report:

This application was deferred from Planning Committee on 7 March as Members wish to carry out a site visit.

The application comes to committee as it is recommended for approval by officers and an objection has been raised by the Parish Council. Four letters of objection were also received.

Two earlier outline applications for two dwellings have recently been refused at the site. These proposed to demolish the bungalow at No.99 and replace it with a dwelling in a similar position and erect a detached dwelling to the rear of the site. The new access to serve the dwelling at the rear ran close to the boundary with No. 97a. Disturbance to the replacement dwelling from the use of the access to the new dwelling at the rear and the disturbance to No.97a Wareham Road made up the reason for refusal.

The current proposal is a full application and is for the demolition of the bungalow at 99 Wareham Road together with the erection of 3 detached chalet type dwellings to the rear of No.99. A new vehicular access is proposed and the access road to the new dwellings will be positioned centrally on the plot to be sited away from the boundary with No.97a.

Ground levels fall away from the rear of No.99, so that the proposed dwellings will be set at a considerably lower level than the road frontage and No.97a and No.99a. This is shown on the submitted cross section. Ample space is available for landscaping, and no adverse impact on the street scene is foreseen as a result.

Plot 1

This is a chalet type dwelling with 2 floors of accommodation. It relies on an unusual design to overcome any overlooking it may generate. The initially submitted plans showed a triangular window at first floor level that faced the rear of 99a Wareham Road. This was considered likely to result in overlooking of No.99a, and the applicant has now submitted

25 amended plans to delete this from the plans and therefore the issue of overlooking No.99a from this window has been resolved.

There is another triangular window at first floor level that will also face the rear of No. 99a, however this has a high cill level that will not permit any overlooking from it. Means of escape for Building Regulations will be met by the provision of a fixed and obscure glazed emergency escape roof light with emergency release bolts which would allow its opening in an emergency only.

This roof light looks over the rear of 101 Wareham Road, and its obscure glazing and closure (except in an emergency) is considered necessary on account of the relationship between it and the rear of No.101 to prevent any loss of privacy for the outside space immediately to the rear of No.101.

There will be a first floor window further to the east on the south elevation of this dwelling, however this will not result in significant overlooking as it is 10m from the boundary with No.101, and is further from the rear of this property.

The triangular window on the east elevation has a high cill level and therefore will not meet Building Regulations with regard to means of escape. Amended plans to lower the cill height have been requested from the applicant’s agent and they are expected prior to the meeting. The lower cill will result in a larger glazed area which will enhance the appearance of this elevation, whilst not generating significant overlooking due to the distance to Plots 2 and 3.

Plot 2

This is a chalet design dwelling and is to be sited at a lower level than Plot 1 and nearest the boundary with No. 97a. It will face up the access towards Wareham Road. The design is considered acceptable and no overlooking is foreseen on account of the orientation of the windows. No first floor windows are proposed in the side (E and W) elevations, and therefore no significant overlooking is foreseen.

Plot 3

This dwelling will also to be sited at a lower level than Plot 1 and nearest the boundary with 101. Its main outlook is to the E and W as Plot 2. A stairwell window faces south over No.101's garden and there are no first floor windows facing N over Plot 2. The design is considered acceptable and no adverse overlooking is foreseen.

The proposed dwellings are situated to the rear of 99a Wareham Road and the dwelling to be demolished at No.99, therefore the site is in a backland location. However with the demolition of No.99, the proposed access has adequate separation distance to adjacent dwellings to prevent excessive disturbance from vehicle movements, and there will be space to provide a landscaping buffer between the access and the boundary with No.97a.

The trees at the site were not covered by a Tree Preservation Order and most of them have now been removed

DCC Highways are happy with the proposed access and have raised no objection to the scheme.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, the first floor window on the west elevation of the dwelling at Plot 1 shall be installed with its cill at or above 1600mm above floor level, and no further fenestration or door shall be installed in the first floor of this elevation without express planning permission.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of 99a Wareham Road.

4 Prior to occupation of the dwelling at Plot 1 the roof lights on the south elevation shall be an obscure glazed emergency escape roof light and it shall be fixed closed and not opened unless in an emergency, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2001, there shall be no further windows inserted into the first floor of the south elevation.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring dwelling.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2001, there shall be no further windows inserted into the first floor of the north elevation of the dwellings on plots 1 and 2.

Reason: To protect the privacy of 97a Wareham Road.

6 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, if any, thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979), immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

27 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.

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

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

8 Prior to the commencement of development, the first 4.5 metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, shall be laid out, constructed, hardened and surfaced, to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9 Prior to the commencement of use the access, turning space, garaging and parking shown on the plan approved pursuant to this outline permission shall have been constructed and these shall be maintained and be kept available for that purpose at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

10 Before the development hereby authorised is brought into use any entrance gates shall be set back a minimum distance of 4.5 metres from the edge of the carriageway and hung so as to open inwards.

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

11 Visibility splays at the access with an 'x' dimension of 2.4 metres and a 'y' dimension of 90 metres such that a vehicular user of the access can see the entire road width for the entire distance 'y', shall be provided prior to the commencement of development and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility for road users in the interests of highway safety.

12 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2001, there shall be no fences, walls or other means of enclosure in the area of land between Plot 1 and the site's boundary with Wareham Road (other than those shown on the approved site plan).

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the locality.

Informatives:

1 The applicants are advised that there is a public foul sewer crossing the site. Please find attached a copy of Wessex Water's sewer records indicating the approximate position of the apparatus. Wessex Water normally requires a minimum, three-metre,

28 easement width on either side of its apparatus, for the purpose of maintenance and repair.

2 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway the Area Highways Manager (East) should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification (for the type access(es)). He can be contacted at the Area Office (East), Stour Park, Blandford St Mary, Dorset, DT11 9LQ (Tel: 01258 450048).

3 The applicant and his successors are advised that the obstruction of the drive and/or turning space by the habitual parking of a second car, a boat, caravan, trailer or other obstruction will constitute an infringement of the condition relating to the construction and use of the turning space. Likewise such works as might otherwise after completion of the development be 'permitted development' shall not be so permitted if they negate or reduce the turning space or drive.

4 In the interests of highway safety, provision shall be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the highway.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/06/0013/FUL

Proposal: Demolition of Existing Dwellings and Erection of a 2/3 Storey Block Of 11 No Flats With Parking and Associated Works. as amended by plans rec'd 6/3/06 Site Address: 51-52 New Borough Road, Wimborne, Dorset, for Primetower Properties Ltd Constraints Fluvial Flooding Area Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Urban Areas LP Conservation Area Site Notice expired: 15 February 2006 Advert expired: 17 February 2006 Nbr-Nfn expired: 10 February 2006

Wimborne Minster Town No objection. However, the car parking spaces provided Council Comments: do not appear to meet the District Council's policy requirements in the local plan (B4.1.)

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection, subject to conditions. Liaison Officer

29 Environment Agency No objection, subject to condition.

V Hickman No Comment

EDDC Design And Conservation

Neighbour Comments: Daniel Williams 4 New Borough Objection Road, Wimborne Over development Parking concerns

S M Dally 50 New Borough only one area of concern Road, Wimborne would like a wall planned along side of the property to protect privacy

Mr Hawkins 8 New Borough Objection Road, Wimborne Out of keeping with the area Traffic concerns

Officers Report:

This site is located on the corner of Poole Road and Newborough Road, Wimborne. The land is triangular in shape and extends to 0.11ha (0.27acre). The site is currently occupied by a pair of semi-detached houses (51 and 52 Newborough Road) which are vacant and in a dilapidated condition. The existing properties face the road junction and have a flank frontage to Poole Road. The site adjoins the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area.

The site has a planning history. In 2000 the council refused a planning application to redevelop the site with nine houses (ref. 3/00/0684). The following year an application for seven dwellings was refused (ref.3/00/1042) on the grounds of overdevelopment, overlooking and relationship with neighbouring development. A subsequent appeal was dismissed. However, the inspector did not consider “....the combined effect of the existing and proposed buildings would be overpowering or intrusive. To my mind the fact that the opposite side of Poole Rd is largely undeveloped would help to avoid any impression that the appeal scheme would press in too closely on the road.” He did have an issue with the size of gardens and overlooking within the scheme and the overbearing effect on the adjacent ground floor flat in Saville Court. Whilst a number of residents made reference to the lack of car parking spaces (11) on site and the parking problems associated with the area this was not an issue at appeal.

A subsequent application for 11 flats (ref 3/04/0931) was withdrawn last year to allow more detailed discussions to take place with officers regarding a suitable scheme.

The current proposal is for the erection of a block of 11 flats which takes the form of a three storey development along Poole Road (similar to Saville Court) lowering to two storey in Newborough Road to reflect the existing Victorian villa development. The access is from Newborough Road which serves a parking area with 14 spaces. Eleven of these spaces are to be undercover in the form of 'cartshed' type carports with three visitor spaces. Two cycle sheds and a bin store are also proposed.

This application is the result of detailed negotiation with your officers with preliminary proposals being presented to the Architects Panel at each key stage of the design process. Whilst the overall height of the building remains an issue, the applicants have endeavoured

30 to keep the height of the three storey development to a minimum and to take into account neighbouring development. A street elevation has been prepared to show the relative heights of adjacent buildings and which are not dissimilar.

There is currently a retaining wall along the Poole Road frontage as the existing ground levels are approximately 1m higher than the pavement edge. This height reduces along Newborough Road as the natural ground level rises. The applicant proposes to reduce the site level and, notwithstanding the minimum floor level requirements specified by the Environment Agency, the finished slab would still be below the existing site level.

The applicant has submitted a schedule of materials together with a sample of bricks they propose to use. Natural slates are proposed for the roof.

The siting and design of the block is considered to be acceptable. The flats are sited 14m away from Saville Court and will not give rise to overlooking or have an overbearing effect on that property. Similarly, the three open parking spaces shown close to Saville Court, are separated by an existing fence and bank and given that the site levels are to be lowered, should not give rise to loss of amenity to the adjacent ground floor flat.

The existing property at 50 Newborough Road is to be 'protected' from the vehicles using the covered 'cartshed' by a 2m high wall to be erected along its boundary. No significant overlooking is anticipated of this property from the proposed three storey flats as the closest facing windows are non habitable rooms and corridors.

The Highways Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to a number of planning conditions being imposed. Given the proximity of the site to Wimborne Town Centre and the availability of public transport along Poole Road, there is no objection to a parking ratio of 1.25 spaces per dwelling on this site. Again this was not an issue in the refusal of earlier schemes.

This is a prominent and sensitive site adjacent to a conservation area. Given the earlier refusals for houses on this site, the applicants have sought to overcome some of the earlier concerns by the introduction of flats which have a better spatial relationship with each other and neighbouring development. The applicants have been guided by your officers and the comments of the Architects Panel in the production of the current scheme which appears to meet the required criteria. The overall height of 11.5m is not dissimilar to adjacent flats at the corner of Newborough Road and Saville Court to the south. As mentioned by an Inspector in relation to an earlier appeal on this site, the fact that the opposite side of Poole Road is largely undeveloped will help to avoid any impression that the scheme would 'press' too closely to the road. The proposal is considered to be acceptable.

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.

31 2 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the building shall be as identified on the submitted drawings unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Reason :To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the building which is situated in a prominent location adjacent to a conservation area.

3 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, if any, thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979), immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

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

4 Prior to the commencement of development, the first 3.5 metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, shall be laid out, constructed, hardened and surfaced, to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

5 The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning space, garaging and parking shown on the approved plan has been constructed and these shall be maintained and be kept available for that purpose at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

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

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7 Visibility splays at the access with an 'x' dimension of 2.4 metres and a 'y' dimension of 40 metres such that a vehicular user of the access can see the entire road width for the entire distance 'y', shall be provided prior to the commencement of development and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility for road users in the interests of highway safety.

8 The development shall not be brought into use unless and until a kerbed footway has been constructed at least 1.5 metres in width along the entire frontage of the site and connecting to Newborough Road the details to be agreed with the local planning authority in conjunction with the local highway authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of highway abutting the development and leading thereto.

9 Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 18.60m AOD .This level shall not be altered in any way without prior permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: To raise the floor of the building above the 1 in 100 year flood level thus minimising potential flood damage.

10 Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2, Class B of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment no access either vehicular or pedestrian shall be formed onto the highway other than those shown on the layout plan approved in accordance with this permission.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the area as a whole and in the interests of road safety.

11 Sample panels (for each colour of brick) shall be constructed on site prior to any building operations being commenced so that the bonding and morter mix can be agreed with the local planning authority.

Reason: to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

12 No vents, extraction flues or dish aerials shall be located on the Newborough Road or Poole Road frontages without prior permission in writing of the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the building.

13 Full details of the design of the boundary walls, railings and render colour (to building and dressing over windows) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, before any building operations are commenced.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the building and means of enclosure.

14 Before any development is commenced on site, full details of the temporary fencing that is proposed to be erected along the boundaries of the site during the construction period, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. the approved scheme shall be implemented in its entirety and remain in situ until either buildings operations are completed of the approved permanent means of enclosure is provided.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent residents during the construction period.

15 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, proposals for the hard landscaping shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved works shall be completed in all respects before the final completion of the development and thereafter retained.

Reason: To enhance the amenities of the site and to secure well planned development.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/06/0026/FUL

Proposal: Increase Height Of Boarded Fence On The West Boundary At The Rear To 2.18 Metres And Retention Of Raised Decking (Retrospective) as amended by additional info rec'd 17.2.06 Site Address: Habgoods Yard, Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen, for Mr And Mrs Lewis Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Site Notice expired: 9 March 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 13 March 2006

Corfe Mullen Parish Council Objection on the following grounds: -The proposal to Comments: increase the height of the fence does not overcome the problems caused by the decking (which led to the retention of the decking being originally refused) namely the loss of privacy and loss of amenity to the neighbouring property 'Girasol'. Even with the higher fence, Girasol would suffer overlooking, especially to its main bedroom. In addition, the additional fencing would give the garden of Girasol a very enclosed and claustrophobic feel. The proposal remains, in the Parish Council's view, contrary to policy DES8 of the local plan.

If the planning officer is minded to grant this application, and it therefore is returned to Committee, the Parish Council strongly recommends a site visit.

Consultee Responses: Neighbour Comments: S And L Richards Girasol, Object: Brook Lane Invasion of privacy Concerns over noise levels Light pollution Present a fire hazard Could reduce the properties saleability

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the Parish Council has objected to the proposal which is at variance with the officer’s recommendation. There has also been one letter of objection from the neighbouring property, ‘Girasol’.

Planning permission was refused last year to retain an area of raised decking in the garden as it was considered that, in use, it would result in overlooking of the neighbouring property.

34 The current application seeks to retain the decking but also proposed to raise the boundary fence from 1.9m to 2.18m to minimise overlooking of the neighbouring property. This would be done by attaching an additional section of fencing to the existing arched trellis which currently sits on top of the boundary fence.

It is understood that the decking replaced an area of sloping ground which had limited use and began to ‘slip’. The slope was removed; the land supported by a retained wall and replaced with the raised decked area now subject to this application.

It is considered that the proposed height of the fence will prevent significant overlooking of ‘Girasol’ from the raised decking. Furthermore, the height of the fence is not considered likely to be overbearing for the occupants of ‘Girasol’, as the fence will be on the east boundary of ‘Girasol’, and there will be no significant loss of sunlight. On balance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 Within one month of the date of the decision notice, a section of close boarded fencing shall be attached to the existing west boundary fence between the application site and the property known as 'Girasol' . The resulting height of the boundary fence above ground level shall be 2.18 metres for its length between the north (rear) boundary and the rear of the dwelling at Habgoods Yard. The fence shall thereafter be retained at this height in perpetuity and not materially altered unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent overlooking of 'Girasol' from the decked area that is to be retained.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/06/0048/FUL

Proposal: Erect New Community Hall and Modify Existing Vehicular Access to Horton Road as amended by Drwg 02C received on 17.2.2006. Site Address: Land Adj Thorpe House, Horton, Wimborne, for Horton And Chalbury Village Hall Commitee Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Village infilling Policy Areas LP District Distributor Road LP Conservation Area Site Notice expired: 22 February 2006 Advert expired: 24 February 2006 Nbr-Nfn expired: 17 February 2006

35 Knowlton Parish Council Support: as we believe the new hall will be an asset to the Comments: village

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development There are a number of amendments to this scheme. Liaison Officer I suggest a meeting is arranged to discuss in detail if you are minded to approve.

Environment Agency

County Rights Of Way Officer

EDDC Design And This is a prominent open site at the eastern end of the Conservation village, on Green Belt land outside the village envelope. The open fields contrast with the built enclosure of the village, as noted in the Conservation Area Appraisal. The site also falls within the Woodlands Area of Great Landscape value.

There would appear to be land-use planning, conservation area and landscape grounds for opposing any form of development on this site. Notwithstanding these policy objections, if exceptions to these policies were to be successfully invoked, the impact upon this sensitive site could be mitigated by: siting, building form design and materials and landscape treatment.

The applicant has followed previous informal design advice in developing a 'barn' type of development located at the northern side of the field. The building adopts simple forms using timber cladding as the principal facing element. Windows are carefully designed so as to avoid diluting its agricultural character. The combined carriageway width at the road junction is 9m which could appear excessive. The access arrangements should be re- considered to achieve a smaller scale and less engineered appearance. Lay-by should be dispensed with. Pavement improvements should be reduced. Consideration should be given to moving the access to the west, separating it from the Vineyard and perhaps introducing a kink. Proposed landscaping is not satisfactory.

Conclusion. Notwithstanding the outstanding policy considerations a concurrent application to redevelop the existing village hall should be determined first, as this will influence any new project. I have reservations over the size of the proposed hall complex partly for cost reasons. Contemporary energy efficient ventilation and heating design solutions may be difficult to achieve in this traditional building. The design proposals in terms of buildability, access/parking and landscaping should all be developed further before formal determination.

EDDC Tree Section There is a line of young to semi-mature Limes and an Ash east of the track leading to the vineyard. These will not be affected by the proposal. There is no other vegetation of significance other than an informal hedge on the west of the site. This site has plenty of potential for soft landscaping and I suggest that a suitable scheme is conditioned. I have no arboricultural objections.

County Archaeological Officer EDDC should request the applicant to carry out an archaeological evaluation of this proposed development before determination.

Wimborne Civic Society The Horton and Chalbury Village Hall Committee are to be congratulated on the progress of this proposal. The site appears to be in the Green Belt just outside, but immediately adjacent to, the village envelope. We have no problem with this and consider that an exception to the normal policies are justified. Application Supported.

Neighbour Comments: Mrs M D Steel Pond Cottage, Objection Horton Concerns over flooding In the green belt

Mr And Mrs P Cosser Object: Middleway, Horton Greenbelt area Unsightly addition to the village No vehicular access to the land Increase in traffic Increase in noise Concerns about drainage

Mr And Mrs Steel Thorpe Objection House, Horton Conservation and green belt area Concerns over flooding Old hall in disrepair concerns that the same will happen to the new one.

Mr And Mrs Chamberlain Island In Support View, Chalbury

Neil Forest Horton Estate Object: Vineyard, Horton Conservation area Dominate the village Green belt Concerns about access to the site

Mr And Mrs King 7 Welchnut In support Cottages, Horton Better parking

Ms M Keatley Grenacre, Horton In support

Miss Vincent And Mr Sceal 2 In support Manor Farm Cottages, Horton but would like the layby to stay

Owner/Occupier Abbey In support Cottage, Horton

Mr And Mrs Harris 4 Welchnut In support Cottages, Horton Village

Mr And Mrs Minter Orchard Objection Farm, Horton In the green belt On a busy road No vechicle access Concerns over traffic and Parking Drainage questions

Mr And Mrs Martin Cherry Approval Trees, Horton Hollows

Mr And Mrs Allsopp Stepping Approval Stones, Haythorne Good parking Health and safety and disabled access better more events

Mr And Mrs Holford Highlea, Approval Haythorne Benefit the spirit of the community Encourage village activity

Mrs P Harwood Wadswell, Approval Haythorne Common Health and safety and disabled facilities More parking facilities

Mr And Mrs Daniels Keepers Approval Cottage, Haythorne Common Safe location Disabled facilities Parking Safety In keeping

G Stevens Spindlewood, Approval Haythorne Common

Rev S McDougall Portman Approval Chase Lodge, Chalbury Better parking

Mr J Street Badgers Holt, Approval Chalbury Hill In keeping Provision for wide range of activities Better parking

Mrs A Shand Ebony Cottage, Approval Chalbury In keeping

38 Better parking

Mr D Shand Ebony Cottage, Approval Chalbury Great asset

P Maunder Sarum House, Approval Chalbury

Mr And Mrs West 3 Matterley Approval Cottages, Cranborne Road Better parking

Mr C Agnew Drapers Field, Approval Chalbury Better parking

A Seeviour Carpenters Approval Cottage, Horton Better Parking

Mr And Mrs Seeviour Hazelnut Approval Cottage, Horton Better parking More safe

Mr And Mrs Stacey Vines Approval House, Horton Better parking

B Fuller The Stables, 2 Orchard Approval Mews In keeping

Miss Attfield And Miss Nash Approval Orchard Cottage, Tower Close Better parking

Mr And Mrs French Hollow Approval Tree House, Chalbury

Mr C Carrigan Chase View, Approval Chalbury Common

Mrs D Emerson April Cottage, Approval Chalbury

Owner/Occupier Hillview, Approval Horton Better parking

Mr And Mrs Arthur April Approval Cottage, Haythorne Common Better parking Better health and safety

Officers Report:

This application has been brought before Members as it does not accord with the Policies in the Local Plan and due to the number of representations received and the linkage of this application to the application for the demolition of the existing Village Hall and the erection of two dwellings under Appn.No. 06/0060 and the application for the demolition of the existing Hall, being demolition within a conservation area, under Appn. No. 06/0061. It has been indicated by the Horton and Chalbury Community Hall Committee that the sale of the existing

39 site will part fund the construction of the Community Hall. These applications are elsewhere on this Agenda

This application is to erect a new community hall on land to the east of Thorpe House. This land is within the Green Belt and the Horton Conservation Area and is within an area of Great Landscape Value. The site is outside the village envelope.

Planning History

A previous planning application was submitted under Appn. No. 02/963 for a smaller hall than the current proposal in the north western part of the site. This comprised two meeting rooms, a small kitchen and toilet facilities. The access abutted the existing drive to Horton Vineyard. This application was concurrent with Appn. No. 02/958 for the conversion of the existing village hall to a residential unit. The files indicate that both applications were withdrawn due to outstanding legal issues.

The current Agent for the Village Hall Committee approached this Council in 2004 for advice regarding the resurrection of this proposal for a new hall outside the village envelope funded by the sale of the present site. Officer advice was that any redevelopment of the current site should not erode the amenity of the Horton Conservation Area. Officers also explained in detail why the erection of a hall outside the village envelope was clearly against both Central Government guidance and the Policies in the Local Plan. Notwithstanding this, the Agent requested a dialogue regarding the design of the hall. This was agreed with the firm caveat that any design advice would not overcome the policy objections to the erection of a hall within the Green Belt. This application follows these negotiations.

Policy Framework

Policy CSIDE1 states that development that would damage the rural character of the countryside will not be permitted. New buildings or other physical developments including car parking will only be permitted in the open countryside outside village envelopes where they will not harm the visual amenities of the countryside by reason of the scale, siting, material and design of any structures used, or car parking.

Policy LSCON2 states that within the Areas of Great Landscape Value shown on the Proposals Map development will be permitted where its siting, design, materials and scale and landscaping are sympathetic to the particular landscape quality and character of the AGLV.

Central Government guidance PPG 2 –Green Belts - states there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Para.3.4 of PPG2 details those exceptions to this presumption. Policy GB2 of the Local Plan recites those exceptions to the general presumption that inappropriate development will not be allowed in the Green Belt. These exceptions do not include community halls or similar buildings.

Central Government guidance for development within a conservation area is contained in PPG 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment. This affirms the requirement for Local Planning Authorities to periodically review its conservation areas and to identify those features that lend an area its special character in order that development control decisions are properly informed. Any assessment should always note those unlisted buildings that contribute to the special character of an area. This Council has published a Conservation Area Appraisal for Horton that is currently being revised and forms Supplementary Planning Guidance in accordance with PPG 15. The Design and Conservation Leader has referred to that part of the Appraisal that refers to the application site.

Policy BUCON 1 states that planning permission will not be given for development within or adjacent to a conservation area which does not preserve or enhance its character or appearance.

Policy DES8 requires that development proposals are compatible or improve their surroundings in a number of key criteria which should be assessed in the context of the site itself, its immediate surroundings and, if relevant, more distant views.

The Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of a community hall on land to the east of Thorpe House and to the west of the access track to Horton Vineyard. The main range runs EW with a length of 22.5m of timber boarding under a cropped slated roof with a large central glazed access with closeable shutters. The east and west gables have robust six pane full height windows while there is a much slacker northern wing with full height slit windows. There is also a northern slated outshut springing from the northern eaves of the main range. The building plot shows screening on the western elevation with an area of ‘Grasscrete’ between the building and the highway. The access has a joint bellmouth from the highway with the Vineyard and runs parallel to that track, turning behind the building to provide a permanent parking area with eight marked spaces. The main internal area has a traditional arch braced feature roof truss. This main hall measures 22m by 5.9m. The front elevation of the hall is approx. 33m from the public highway.

Appraisal

PPG2 – Green Belts states that inappropriate development will not be allowed in the Green Belt. It is clear from both Central Government guidance and Policy GB2 that this is inappropriate development and the applicants have not produced the very special circumstances that would allow this policy to be overturned.

As required by PPG 15 this Council has prepared a Conservation Area Appraisal for Horton that has been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Design and Conservation Leader points out that the Appraisal states:

‘Outside the Village immediately to the east, open grassland rises on each side of the Horton Road. Its open undeveloped character enhances the Conservation Area and forms an attractive approach to the Village’.

He also appraises the design in general terms but points out the unsatisfactory details that need refining. These are identified as the hard landscaping and surface treatments and parking. These elements should be ‘worked up’ before any decision is made. This Council’s parking standards require I space per 5sq.m. gross floor area for community halls plus staff parking. The proposal has a gross floor area of approx. 285 sq.m. This indicates a need for 57 spaces not including staff parking. The indicated eight formal spaces is clearly substandard, given that the proposed building is expected to have a catchment area that extends beyond the immediate settlement and is likely to generate traffic movements.

41 development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission.

This application was considered by the Architect’s Panel on 2 February 2006. Their comments were:

‘Suggest bring forward to road to get more parking to rear (One more bay) Wings could be brick , extending to walled enclosure perhaps. Could have tile to main roof, slate to lower pitches/wings. Commend approach – particularly suitable for such a large building.

The applicants have submitted a two page business plan. It estimates construction costs as being between £290K and £340K . The sale of the old hall is expected to raise between £150K and £175K. The Hall Committee is confident of financing the shortfall through local and national grants. The Plan states ‘application for quotes cannot be submitted until planning approval is obtained’. The Plan states that liaison with other community halls indicates an expected annual income between £6,000 to £8,000 against average costs of £3,200. No detailed breakdown of these figures are provided.

The County Archaeologist has requested an archaeological evaluation prior to determination due to the acknowledged presence of significant pottery remains on the site. This has been passed to the Agent who has requested that this is dealt with by condition. This is considered inappropriate by the County Archaeologist due to the potential for archaeological constraints on the site.

Summary

The proposal for a community hall is inappropriate within the Green Belt and there are no overriding special circumstances to overturn the strong presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt, as laid down in PPG2 and Policy GB2 of the Local Plan. The siting, scale and landscaping do not accord with the landscape quality of the area, which has been identified as open gently rolling countryside once outside the village envelope and is therefore contrary to Policy LSCON2. The area to the east of the Village has been identified in the Horton Conservation Area Appraisal as an area that forms an attractive approach to the settlement, and a large community building with its attendant casual parking would erode the amenities of this part of the Conservation Area contrary to Policy BUCON 1. For the same reasons it fails CSIDE1 as the proposed development does not fall into one of the categories where development will be permitted in the open countryside outside village policy envelopes.

The archaeological requirement for an evaluation has not been provided before determination in accordance with PPG 16 – Archaeology and Planning which would determine the date, nature, quality and importance of the remains on the site and therefore fails Policy ARCON 1.

The applicants have failed to make the case that there are special circumstances that justify overturning policy considerations that have the weight of the Local Plan behind them.

Elsewhere on this Agenda Officers have recommended that Applications 06/0060 and 06/0061 for the redevelopment of the existing Village Hall in Horton are refused due in the main to the effect upon the amenity of the Conservation Area which the applicants have clearly linked to this proposal, and must further undermine its viability.

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

42 Reasons:-

1 The proposed community hall and associated access and parking is inappropriate development within the Green Belt in that it would not maintain the openness of the land and therefore fails to comply with Para. 3.4 of PPG2 - Green Belts and Policy GB2 of the Local Plan. In addition it would damage the rural character of the countryside as it does not fall within the categories of development considered acceptable within the open countryside as detailed in Policy CSIDE1 of the East Dorset Local Plan and therefore fails that Policy.

2 The proposal falls within an area of open land identified in the Horton Conservation Area Appraisal, which has been adopted by this Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance, as contributing to the amenity of that part of the Conservation Area due to its open undeveloped character. For this reason the development of this open area would be contrary to Policy BUCON1 of the Local Plan.

3 The proposal fails Policy LSCON2 of the Local Plan as the siting, landscaping and scale of the proposed community hall and its associated car parking and access are not sympathetic to the character of the Woodlands Area of Great Landscape Value which is described in this Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance as characterised by open and gently rolling countryside

4 The applicants have failed to submit an archaeological evaluation of the site as requested by the County Archaeologist and in accordance with the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance 16 - Archaeology and Planning and the proposal therefore fails Policy ARCON1 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 11. Ref: 3/06/0060/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Existing Village Hall and Erect 2No New Dwelling as amended by Drwgs 06C and 07D received on 27.2. 2006. Site Address: Horton And Chalbury Village Hall, Horton Road, Horton, for Horton And Chalbury Village Hall Committee Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Village infilling Policy Areas LP District Distributor Road LP Conservation Area Site Notice expired: 22 February 2006 Advert expired: 24 February 2006 Nbr-Nfn expired: 17 February 2006

Knowlton Parish Council No objection however we request that the old bricks are Comments: used for the proposed front wall. Concern with the parking arrangement.

43 Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Before I can make my formal recommendation the Liaison Officer following amendment should be noted: -The front boundary wall encroaches on the public highway. The off street parking is on highway verge. A meeting should be arranged to discuss in detail if you are minded to approve.

Environment Agency Object, due to a lack of submitted information on foul drainage.

County Archaeological Officer I advise that the following condition be attached to any grant of planning consent: -The applicant shall secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant to, and approved by the planning authority. This scheme shall cover archaeological fieldwork together with post-excavation work and publication of the results.

EDDC Tree Section On the Eastern boundary of this site is a semi-mature conifer hedge that currently provides a screen between the hall and Abbey Cottage. Should permission be granted to re-develop the village hall it is likely that sections of this screen may be lost due to its close proximity to the proposed development. However, it is of moderate form and little amenity value. No TPO is to be made.

Therefore, I have no objections to this site.

EDDC Design And Prior to any decision regarding the future use of this Conservation building, planning permission should be secured for the new village hall, bearing in mind that this building is proposed on green belt land outside the village envelope. The existing building clearly has some historic and townscape interest and it is unfortunate that it could not be converted to residential use instead of redeveloped. The existing good brickwork is unlikely to be replicated in any new work. However, on paper, the proposed scheme would appear appropriatein terms of its scale and proportion to The Old School House.

Architects' Panel Loss of existing building will not preserve or enhance Conservation Area. Two dwellings would have no parking. Design is poor. Does not respect School House. Suggest conversion to single dwelling with parking.

Neighbour Comments: 1 Manor Farm Cottages, Horton

Miss Vincent And Mr Sceal 2 In support Manor Farm Cottages, Horton but think the layby should stay

44 Mr Askew THe Old School Objection House, Horton No Privacy Structural Damage Parking Access

Mr And Mrs Chamberlain Island In Support View, Chalbury

Mr And Mrs P Cosser Object: Middleways , Horton Conservation area Removing a historical part of Horton Concerns about parking

Mr And Mrs King 7 Welchnut In support Cottages, Horton Better parking

Owner/Occupier Abbey in support Cottage, Horton

Ms M Keatley Grenacre, Horton in support

Mr And Mrs Harris 4 Welchnut in support Cottages, Horton Village

Mr C Carrigan Chase View, Approval Chalbury Common In keeping Affordable Housing

Mr And Mrs Allsopp Stepping Approval Stone, Haythorne

Mr And Mrs Holford Highlea, Approval Haythorne

Mrs P Harwood Wadswell, Approval Haythorne Common

Mr And Mrs Daniels Keepers Approval Cottage, Haythorne Common

G Stevens Spindlewood, Approval Haythorne Common

Mr And Mrs Stacey Vines Approval House, Horton In keeping

Rev S McDougall Portman Approval Chase Lodge, Chalbury

Mrs A Shand Ebony Cottage, Approval Chalbury

Mr D Shand Ebony Cottage, Approval

45 Chalbury

P Maunder Sarum House, Approval Chalbury

Mr And Mrs West 3 Matterley Approval Cottages, Cranborne Road

Mr C Agnew Drapers Field, Approval Chalbury In keeping Affordable Housing

B Fuller The Stables, 2 Orchard Approval Mews In keeping Affordable Housing

Miss Attfield And Miss Nash Approval Orchard Cottage, Tower Close

Mr And Mrs French Hollow Approval Tree House, Chalbury

Mrs D Emerson April Cottage, Approval Chalbury

Officers Report:

This application has been brought before Members due to the number of representations received and the linkage of this application to the application for the erection of a community hall adjacent to Thorpe House elsewhere on this Agenda.

This application is to demolish the existing Village Hall in Horton and erect two storey attached dwellings. The Horton and Chalbury Village Hall Committee have stated the intention of using funding from the redevelopment of this site to fund the construction of a community hall outside the village envelope. The application for the erection of the Hall is elsewhere on this Agenda under Appn. No. 06/0048. The existing Village Hall is within the Horton Conservation Area and the village infilling envelope, is overwashed by the Green Belt and is within an Area of Great Landscape value. The Hall is not a listed building

Planning History

A previous planning application was submitted under Appn. No. 02/958 for the conversion of the existing Village Hall to a residential unit. The County Highways Officer raised no objection as did the Design and Conservation Leader who requested further details of parking and access. This application was also concurrent with an application to erect a community hall on land to the east of Thorpe House under Appn. No. 02/963. This site is within the Conservation Area and overwashed by Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value designations. Both applications were withdrawn.

46 Government guidance and the Policies in the Local Plan. Notwithstanding this, the Agent requested a dialogue regarding the design of the hall. This was agreed with the firm caveat that any design advice would not overcome the policy objections to the erection of a hall within the Green Belt. This application follows these negotiations.

Policy Framework

Central Government guidance for development within a conservation area is contained in PPG 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment. This affirms the requirement for Local Planning Authorities to periodically review its conservation areas and to identify those features that lend an area its special character in order that development control decisions are properly informed. Any assessment should always note those unlisted buildings that contribute to the special character of an area. This Council has published a Conservation Area Assessment for Horton that is currently being revised and forms Supplementary Planning Guidance in accordance with PPG 15.

Policy BUCON 1 states that planning permission will not be given for development within or adjacent to a conservation area which does not preserve or enhance its character or appearance.

Policy BUCON2 states that where a building makes a positive contribution to the character, appearance or architectural and historic interest of a conservation area, permission will not be granted which would facilitate its demolition.

Policy BUCON3 states permission will not be granted for demolition within a Conservation Area unless it will in itself, or through subsequent redevelopment of the site, preserve or enhance the character, appearance, architectural or historic interest of the area. Where ugly gaps would be created as a result of demolition far in advance of redevelopment, demolition for redevelopment will not be permitted unless detailed proposals for the replacement development have been approved by the Local Planning Authority and agreements made to ensure that the replacement works will be carried out within a specified time scale.

The Proposal

The proposal entails the demolition of the existing single storey Village Hall, which was the former school for the village. This is also subject to an application for demolition in a conservation area under Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 under Appn. No. 06/0061, which again appears elsewhere on this Agenda. This is a single storey building with a conspicuous stack and pot adjacent to what was the old school house. The rear comprises two single storey wings with a small enclosed rear garden that abuts the grounds of St Wolfrida’s Church.

The proposal is for two linked two storey three bedroomed gabled dwellings with their eaves to the highway set behind a guard wall comprising brick piers and brick infill topped by railings. An amended plan setting the buildings further back was received after negotiations with the County Highways Officer. The front elevation comprises an offset door under a porch with irregular fenestration with dressings. The rear elevation has a domestic appearance with a pair of large casements at ground floor level. The plan shows Plot 2 to have a peninsular of soft landscaping at the rear with a patio area immediately adjacent the rear elevation that opens onto the garden area of The Old School House.

Appraisal

As required by PPG 15 this Council has prepared a Conservation Area Appraisal for Horton that has been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance. In accordance with the advice in PPG 15 it identifies the group of the Village Hall and Old School House as contributing to the streetscape at this part of the road and points out that the diverse forms of the rear of this group contribute good townscape qualities when viewed from the open churchyard of St Wolfridas. This is backed up by guidance in the English Heritage publication ‘Conservation Area Appraisals’ which states in its checklist for unlisted buildings in a conservation area; ‘Does it, individually or as part of a group, serve as a reminder of the gradual development of the settlement in which it stands, or of an earlier phase of growth?’ In this case the existing Hall, with its succession of public uses demonstrates the social changes over time of this part of the Conservation Area. The same document also refers to the importance of views of the rear of buildings from open areas.

Policy BUCON1 states that planning permission will not be given for development within or adjacent to a conservation area which does not enhance its character or appearance. PPG 15 states in para. 4.19 that case law has confirmed that planning decisions in respect of development proposed to be carried out in a conservation area must give high priority to the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of an area. If any development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission. Policies BUCON 2 and 3 affirm the importance of preserving those buildings of character in a Conservation Area. This springs from the guidance in para. 4.27 of PPG 15 that states that applications for the demolition of buildings of character within a CA should be appraised against the same criteria as applications for the demolition of listed buildings. Para 3.19 of PPG 15 requires that the following considerations are satisfied before consent is given for the demolition of a listed building:

(i) The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continual use.

(ii) The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. The Secretary of State would not expect consent to be granted for demolition unless the authority is satisfied that real efforts have been made without success to continue the use or find compatible alternative uses for the building. This should include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building’s condition.

(iii) The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Whilst these are a material consideration, the Secretaries of State take the view that subjective claims for the architectural merits of replacement buildings should not in themselves be held to justify the demolition of any building.

This application was considered by the Architect’s Panel on 2 February 2006. Their comments were;

‘Loss of existing building will not preserve or enhance Conservation Area. The two dwellings would have no parking. Design is poor, does not reflect history of site, previous forms etc. Could be anywhere. Does not respect schoolhouse. Suggest conversion to single dwelling with parking.’

48 Site inspection shows the rear garden of the Old School House is on two levels, with the lower level behind the existing Hall and hard up against the southern wing of the Hall, which has obscure glazing to the lower part of the gable glazing to preserve the amenities of users of the garden. The proposal entails the demolition of this wing with Unit 2 having a 3.75m deep patio against its rear elevation separated from the garden area for the Old School House by a brick wall. Unit 2 also has a peninsular of garden area that is accessed from the SE corner of the patio and cuts across the rear plot of Unit 1.

Summary

The Conservation Area Appraisal for Horton, which has been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 25, identifies the group of buildings including the existing Village Hall as contributing to the amenity of the Conservation Area. This view is reinforced by the relevance to the checklist suggested by English Heritage when carrying out a conservation area appraisal. This therefore requires the application of the same test as for the demolition of a listed building to this proposal. In this instance no evidence has been provided that the building is so defective that repair would be prohibitive. The building is not redundant, and is currently used for social purposes at present. It is considered that the replacement dwellings are not of sufficient architectural merit to be a material consideration, and this view is shared by the Architects Panel. The proposal therefore fails the guidance in PPG 15 and Policies BUCON 1, 2 and 3 of the Local Plan.

The relationship between the patio of Unit 2 and the existing rear garden of the Old School House appears unsatisfactory, with the potential for the patio area introducing noise and causing loss of amenity to the users of the garden of the Old School House. Any measure to introduce a satisfactory degree of screening, such as by retaining a significant portion of the gable of the existing rear wing of the Hall, are likely to result in an oppressive environment to the occupiers of Unit 2. The form of the rear amenity area of Unit 2 is likely in turn to impact upon the amenities of Unit 1, resulting in an overall impression of cramped overdevelopment. The appearance of the rear elevations of Units 1 and 2 introduces an essentially suburban element with necessarily prominent boundary treatments into a view from the churchyard of St Wolfrida’s that is currently a visually interesting mix of single storey forms. The proposal therefore fails Policy DES8 in that it is incompatible in terms of its architectural style and the subsequent visual impact in the context of the site itself and its poor relationship to nearby properties and its failure to harmonise with the townscape and the general character of the area in which it is set.

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

Reasons:-

1 The proposal would result in the demolition of a building that has been identified in Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 7 - Horton as a building that contributes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area the loss of which would be contrary to the guidance contained in PPG 15 - Planning and the Historic Environment and Policies BUCON 1 and 2 of the Local Plan. In addition, the proposed redevelopment of the site by two dwellings would not preserve or enhance the character, appearance, architectural or historic interest of the area contrary to Policy BUCON3 of the Local Plan.

2 The proposal fails Policy DES8 of the Local Plan in that it is incompatible in terms of architectural style and the subsequent visual impact on the streetscape of Horton Conservation Area when compared to the modest single storey nature of the existing building and the suburban appearance of the rear elevations and boundary

49 treatments of the proposal when viewed from the Churchyard of St Wolfrida's Church, a Grade 1 Listed Building, in the context of the site itself, its immediate surroundings and more distant views. In addition, the poor relationship between the rear amenity areas of the proposed plots of the proposal and the existing amenity area of The Old School House would lead to loss of amenity due to noise and disturbance and an appearance of cramped overdevelopment contrary to that Policy.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 12. Ref: 3/06/0061/CON

Proposal: Demolish Existing Village Hall and Erect 2No New Dwellings as amended by Drwgs 06C and 07D received on 27.2.2006. Site Address: Horton And Chalbury Village Hall, Horton Road, Horton, for Horton And Chalbury Village Hall Committee Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Village infilling Policy Areas LP District Distributor Road LP Conservation Area Site Notice expired: 22 February 2006 Advert expired: 24 February 2006 Nbr-Nfn expired: 17 February 2006

Knowlton Parish Council No objection however we request that the old bricks are Comments: used for the proposed front wall. Concern with the parking arrangement.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Before I can make my formal recommendation the Liaison Officer following amendment should be noted: -The front boundary wall encroaches on the public highway. The off street parking is on highway verge. A meeting should be arranged to discuss in detail if you are minded to approve.

Environment Agency The Environment Agency does not wish to provide any comment regarding this planning application.

Therefore, I have no objections to this site.

EDDC Design And Conservation

Neighbour Comments: Miss Vincent And Mr Sceal 2 In support Manor Farm Cottages, Horton but would like the layby to stay

Owner/Occupier Abbey in support Cottage, Horton

Mr And Mrs Chamberlain Island In Support View, Chalbury

Mr And Mrs King 7 Welchnut In support Cottages, Horton

Ms M Keatley Grenacre, Horton in support

Mr And Mrs Harris 4 Welchnut in support Cottages, Horton Village

Mr And Mrs Martin Cherry Approval Trees, Horton Hollows

Mr And Mrs Stacey Vines Approval House, Horton

Mr C Agnew Drapers Field, Approval Chalbury in keeping Affordable Housing

B Fuller The Stables 2 Orchard Approval Mews, Horton In keeping Affordable Housing

Miss Attfield And Miss Nash Approval Orchard Cottage, Tower Close

Mr And Mrs French Hollow Approval Tree House, Chalbury

Mrs Russell Firs Cottage, Approval Tower Close

Mrs D Emerson April Cottage, Approval Chalbury

Officers Report:

This application is for consent under Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to demolish the existing Village Hall in Horton and erect two, two storey attached dwellings. Application 06/0060 refers to the erection of the two attached dwellings. The Horton and Chalbury Village Hall Committee have stated the intention of using funding from the redevelopment of this site to fund the construction of a community hall outside the village envelope. The application for the erection of the Hall is elsewhere on this Agenda under Appn. No. 06/0048. The existing Village Hall is within the Horton Conservation Area and the village infilling envelope, is overwashed by the Green Belt and is within an Area of Great Landscape value. The Hall is not a listed building.

Planning History

A previous planning application was submitted under Appn. No. 02/958 for the conversion of the existing Village Hall to a residential unit. The County Highways Officer raised no objection as did the Design and Conservation Leader who requested further details of parking and access. This application was also concurrent with an application to erect a community hall on land to the east of Thorpe House under Appn. No. 02/963. This site is within the Conservation Area and overwashed by Green Belt and AGLV designations. The files indicate that both applications were withdrawn due to outstanding legal issues.

The current Agent for the Village Hall Committee approached this Council in 2004 for advice regarding the resurrection of this proposal for a new hall outside the village envelope funded by the sale of the present site. Officer advice was that any redevelopment of the current site should not erode the amenity of the Conservation Area. Officers also explained in detail why the erection of a hall outside the village envelope was clearly against both Central Government guidance and the Policies in the Local Plan. Notwithstanding this, the Agent requested a dialogue regarding the design of the hall. This was agreed with the firm caveat that any design advice would not overcome the policy objections to the erection of a hall within the Green Belt. This application follows these negotiations.

Policy Framework

Central Government guidance for development within a conservation area is contained in PPG 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment. This affirms the requirement for Local Planning Authorities to periodically review its conservation areas and to identify those features that lend an area its special character in order that development control decisions are properly informed. Any assessment should always note those unlisted buildings that contribute to the special character of an area. This Council has published a Conservation Area Assessment for Horton that is currently being revised and forms Supplementary Planning Guidance in accordance with PPG 15. Para. 4.27 of PPG15 also requires that any application to demolish a building that makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area should be assessed against the same broad criteria as proposals for the demolition of a listed building.

52 Policy BUCON 1 states that planning permission will not be given for development within or adjacent to a conservation area which does not preserve or enhance its character or appearance.

The Proposal

The proposal entails the demolition of the existing single storey Village Hall, which was the former school for the village. This is a single storey building with a conspicuous stack and pot adjacent to what was the old school house. The rear comprises two single storey wings with a small enclosed rear garden that abuts the grounds of St Wolfrida’s Church. Application No. 06/0060 refers to the redevelopment of the site.

Appraisal

Policy BUCON1 states that planning permission will not be given for development within or adjacent to a conservation area which does not enhance its character or appearance. PPG 15 states in para. 4.19 that case law has confirmed that planning decisions in respect of development proposed to be carried out in a conservation area must give high priority to the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of an area. If any development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission. Policies BUCON 2 and 3 affirm the importance of preserving those buildings of character in a CA. This springs from the guidance in para. 4.27 of PPG 15 that applications for the demolition of buildings of character within a CA should be appraised against the same criteria as applications for the demolition of listed buildings. Para 3.19 of

53 PPG 15 requires that the following considerations are satisfied before consent is given for the demolition of a listed building and are therefore applicable in this instance:

(i) The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continual use.

Summary

The Conservation Area Appraisal for Horton, which has been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 25, identifies the group of buildings including the existing Village Hall as contributing to the amenity of the Conservation Area. This view is reinforced by the relevance to the checklist suggested by English Heritage when carrying out a conservation area appraisal. PPG 15 therefore requires the application of the same test as for the demolition of a listed building to this proposal as this group of buildings are identified as contributing to the character of the Conservation Area. In this instance no evidence has been provided that the building is so defective that repair would be prohibitive. The building is not redundant, and is currently used for social purposes at present. As an alternative the building has not been offered for sale on the open market. It is considered that the replacement dwellings are not of sufficient architectural merit to be a material consideration, and this view is shared by the Architects Panel. The proposal therefore fails the guidance in PPG 15 and Policies BUCON 1, 2 and 3 of the Local Plan.

If the full application for the demolition of the existing Village Hall and the re-development of the site by two attached dwellings made under Appn. No. 06/0060 is refused by this Committee then this application must also fail Policy BUCON3 as detailed proposals for the replacement development have not been approved.

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

Reasons:-

1 The proposed demolition of the existing Village Hall fails to comply with Policy BUCON3 of the East Dorset Local Plan as detailed proposals for the replacement development have not been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 13. Ref: 3/06/0064/FUL

Proposal: Erect Block of 4 Flats with Garages and Construct New Access

Site Address: Land At Church Hill, Verwood, Dorset, for Aquilla Developments Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Urban Areas LP Public Rights of Way Site Notice expired: 22 February 2006 Advert expired: 24 February 2006 Nbr-Nfn expired: 17 February 2006

Verwood Town Council No objection, subject to highway approval. Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection, subject to the same conditions previously Liaison Officer recommended for previous application number 3/05/1232.

English Nature Legal Agreement required to ensure age restriction and no predatory pets.

EDDC Tree Section The proposal with regards to trees, is an improvement from the last submission. I am satisfied that the location of the protective fencing is shown to be 12 meters from the stem of both trees.

Given the open nature of the site there is considerable room for tree planting and I suggest that a suitable landscaping scheme is approved and conditioned.

If you are minded to approve this application, please condition the following:

-That protective barriers will be installed within the site at a minimum distance of 12 meters from the two Oaks in and adjacent to the North-West and South-West corners of the site. The barriers will consist of a scaffold framework of a height no less than 2.4 meters, well braced to resist impacts, with vertical tubes spaced at a maximum interval of three meters. Onto this, weld mesh panels will be securely fixed with wire or scaffold clamps. Weld mesh panels on rubber or concrete feet are not resistant to impact and will not be used. The barriers shall be installed and the Local Planning Authority Arboricultural Officer shall be notified to inspect the fencing prior to any materials or machinery being brought onto the site and before any demolition, development or stripping of the soil commences. The barriers shall be retained until the development has been completed and nothing shall be placed within the Construction Exclusion Zone, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the planning authority.

55 Protective barriers shall conform with sections 9.1 and 9.2 of BS.5837:2005 Recommendations for trees in relation to construction.

Reason: So that the Council may be satisfied that protected trees are afforded adequate protection throughout construction.

Neighbour Comments:

C M Flether 1 Churchfield, Object: Verwood Concerns over the access onto the site

Mrs J A Tobiasz 5 Churchfield, Objection Verwood Out of Character

Officers Report:

This site lies at the junction of Church Hill, Margards Lane and Churchfield. Three dwellings were refused (3/01/0612) because they resulted in a cramped and congested development which was out of keeping with the character of the area and dismissed on appeal and two bungalows were refused (3/03/1223) solely because of the proximity of the site to the Dewlands Common Site of Special Scientific Interest which is part of the Dorset heathlands which is subject to European protection. The subsequent appeal was dismissed.

The current proposal is acceptable to English Nature providing the flats are occupied by over 55s who do not own cats or dogs and providing the flats are leasehold and run by a management agency. The applicants are willing to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement to achieve this objective. This is the only basis which enables English Nature to accept any residential development within 400 metres of one of the heathlands. It is the same arrangement which was accepted on appeal for a block of 12 flats in Dewlands Road.

The design of this scheme is intended to keep the footprint to that which would have been taken up by the two bungalows (which were acceptable as far as their impact on their immediate surroundings was concerned) and the height is limited to 6.8 metres. Three of the units are at ground floor level with one in the roof. The site is large enough to take a development of this type without having any significant adverse impact on the character of the area or on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings. There is a bungalow on the north side and to the west (at a lower level) and a house to the south.

There is therefore a favourable recommendation although any permission can only be issued after the legal agreement to secure the Verwood contributions and the requirements of English Nature have been entered into.

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.

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

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

3 The grounds of the flats shall not be subdivided by the erection of walls or fences, or by planting, or be transferred to the owners of the flats but shall be maintained in an open format for the use and benefit of all the occupants.

Reason : To maintain the appearance and character of the area.

4 Prior to the commencement of development, the first 10 metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, shall be laid out, constructed, hardened and surfaced, to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

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

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

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

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

8 Protective barriers shall be installed within the site a minimum of 12 metres from the two oak trees in and adjacent to the north-west and south-west corners of the site. The barriers will consist of a scaffold framework of a height no less than 2.4 metres, well braced to resist impacts, with vertical tubes spaced at a maximum interval of three metres. Onto this weld mesh panels shall be securely fixed with wire or scaffold clamps (weld mesh panels on rubber or concrete feet are not resistant to impact and must not be used). The barriers shall be installed and the Local Planning Authority notified to inspect the fencing prior to any materials or machinery being brought onto the site and before any demolition, development or stripping of soil commences. The barriers shall be retained until the development has been

57 completed and nothing shall be placed within the Construction Exclusion Zone, nor shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The protective barriers shall conform with sections 9.1 and 9.2 of BS5837 : 2005 Recommendations for Trees in Relation to Construction.

Reason : To protect trees in the interests of the amenities of the area.

9 Details of screen fencing and walling shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced on site. Such fencing and walling shall be erected before the dwelling to which it relates is first occupied and maintained for a period of 5 years and any structural or decorative defects appearing during this period shall be rectified and thereafter the screen shall be retained.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and privacy.

10 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, if any, thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979), immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

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

Informatives:

1 This grant of permission is to be read in conjunction with the Legal Agreement dated **** entered into between East Dorset District Council and ****.

3 In the interests of highway safety, provision shall be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the highway.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 14. Ref: 3/06/0071/FUL

Proposal: Ground Floor Extension to Bungalow.

Site Address: 31 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset, for Mr And Mrs Kinnon Constraints Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Windfarm Consultation Zone Site Notice expired: 4 March 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 February 2006

Verwood Town Council No objection subject to tree officers comments Comments:

Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section Object for the same reasons are before on 3/05/1147, i.e. good quality Silver Birch to the rear of the proposed extension which would be lost if the building work goes ahead.

Neighbour Comments: Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee for determination as the application is submitted with the support of Public Health Services of this Council but which is at variance with the officers’ recommendation of refusal.

The current application is a resubmission of a previously refused application 3/05/1147, which was refused on tree grounds.

The application is identical to the earlier refused application. However, on this occasion a supporting statement has been received from the Council’s Private Sector Housing Manager which sets out the need for the extension.

The Statement confirms that the application “…..relates to works that this Council is considering approving under the Disabled Facilities Grant process. The works are supported by the Dorset County Council Social Care and Health Occupational Therapists who will also be contributing to a considerable amount of funding subject to planning consent. The ground floor extension has been designed to provide additional and essential bedroom space for two disabled teenagers who are both wheelchair dependant. A number of different layouts have been considered but the option that forms the basis of the application is considered to be the only one that will meet their respective needs.”

The boundary treatment on the side elevations adjoining the neighbouring properties consist of high hedges and trees and to the direct rear 1.8m fence and mature bushes and trees. The rear addition is well screened from view with a flat roof. There is an important amenity tree, a Silver Birch within the rear garden which is covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

The proposed extension (which incorporates part of the existing flat roof extension), to the rear has dimension of 5.7m by 6.m with an overall height of 3.1m, accommodating two additional bedrooms.

The proposed extension will enhance the property with a pitched roof to match the main dwelling, leading to the removal of the existing flat roofed additions. The proposal will have limited visual prominence to the adjoining properties and no street scene issues.

There is however a good quality Silver Birch tree to the rear of the proposed extension which would be lost if the application were to be approved. This tree is visible from outside the site and is important to the visual amenities of the area. The applicant has offered to plant a replacement tree if required.

Whilst the personal circumstances of the applicant have been taken into account it is not considered that these are so special as to outweigh the loss of this visually prominent tree.

The application is therefore recommended for refusal in accordance with policy DES7 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

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

Reasons:-

1 The Birch Tree adjacent to the proposed extension provides a good level of visual amenity to the locality. The proposal will cause direct damage to the tree roots resulting in its loss. The loss of the amenity tree would be to the detriment of the locality and is therefore contrary to the EDLP policies DES8 and DES7.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 15. Ref: 3/06/0095/COU

Proposal: Change Of Use From Double Garage To Ice Cream Production Unit And Erection Of Temporary Wooden Building For Retail Sales. Site Address: Barford Farm, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs Pope Constraints Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Windfarm Consultation Zone Green Belt LP Groundwater Protection Zone Site Notice expired: 12 March 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired:

Pamphill And Shapwick No objection and support for the following reasons: -The Parish Council Comments: parish wholeheartedly support this application, despite it being in a greenbelt area. The proposed car park is well hidden behind a well established hedge. This is also self enterprise which is encouraged by the government.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection, subject to the same conditions previously

60 Liaison Officer recommended for Previous Application Numbers 3/05/0736 and 3/05/1257.

EDDC Design And The existing access onto the public highway appears Conservation satisfactory, with good visibility both directions and thus obviating the need for any hedgerow removal. The main driveway to the farm is good, but the secondary drive through the garden, though attractive, might be rather narrow. Parking and turning space at the other end appears rather limited. However, I am sure that if necessary, these access issues can be easily resolved. Issues such as external lighting and signs may require sorting out prior to granting approval.

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report: This application comes before Members at the request of the local Councillor. The Parish Council also wish to support the application.

The site is a dairy farm with its associated fields, (some for growing arable crops), and buildings, including the farm house and its two domestic garages. The site is situated in the Green Belt and in an Area of Outstanding natural Beauty.

The proposal involves the conversion of a domestic double garage into an ice- cream production unit, and the construction of a prefabricated timber structure with disabled access to act as a shop. Temporary seasonal car parking is proposed in a field abutting the farm garden to the south west, with access through the farm house garden to the shop. Servicing would be via the farm at the rear. Accompanying the application is a supporting statement which comments on diversification, sustainability, traffic, local demand and creation of jobs.

Planning permission has been sought for this farm diversification on two previous occasions. The first application (ref 05/0736) was similar to this proposal and was refused in May 2005 on the grounds of a new commercial building being contrary to Green Belt Policies and the position of the proposed car parking being unacceptable in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The second application (ref 05/1257) was just for the conversion of the existing garage into an ice cream production room. This application was approved in September 2005 as the contentious issues of a new building in the Green Belt and the car parking in a field in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty had been removed from the application following negotiations with the applicant.

As identified in the earlier refused application the main concern with the proposal is the additional building for shop use, as it would be contrary to Policy GB2, jeopardising the openness of the Green Belt. It would be inappropriate development as there is a presumption against new building in the Green Belt based on national policy advice. In addition the proposal would damage the rural character of the countryside unnecessarily as there are already existing buildings on the site which could accommodate a shop area for the proposed enterprise. Furthermore, the proposed car parking area, situated in a field in front of the farm house and away from the main farm buildings would harm the visual amenities of this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and detract from the rural character of the area by appearing intrusive in the countryside.

61 This scheme is considered inappropriate in the Green Belt as it would detract from its openness and a permission would clearly result in a most unfortunate precedent. It would conflict with Central Government guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 and the policies of the Local Plan with regard to both Green Belt and Countryside issues.

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

Reasons:-

1 The proposed development lies within the Green Belt as defined in the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000, and identified in the East Dorset Local Plan (2002). Within this area it is intended that no new development shall be permitted except in connection with agriculture or forestry or other uses appropriate. The construction of new commercial building and the construction of a car park is clearly contrary to the policies contained within these aforementioned Plans and the advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 'Green Belts' and as such represents inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and contrary to the purposes of including the land within it. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are any circumstances which are so special so as to outweigh the Green Belt policies, the harm to the openness of the Green belt and the reasons for including the land within it. It is therefore contrary to national policy advice and Policy GB2 (para.6.97) of the East Dorset Local Plan

2 The position of the proposed car parking is considered unacceptable, as it would harm the visual amenities of this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and detract from the natural beauty and rural character of the area, contrary to Policies CSIDE1(para.6.83), CSIDE2 (para. 6.59), GB2 (para.6.97) and LSCON1 (para.6.83) of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 16. Ref: 3/06/0111/FUL

Proposal: Erection of New Two Bedroom Bungalow as amended by plans rec'd 9.2.06 and amended plans rcv'd 22.02.06 Site Address: 28-29 Churchill Close, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs A Harvey Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Site Notice expired: 8 March 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 February 2006

Sturminster Marshall Parish Re-iterates comments made before on 3/05/1497/FUL. Council Comments: in addition: At the moment one car can park in front of the garages of

62 28 and 29. this application would lead to the creation of a car park allowing parking in front of the houses and the sight of 6 cars would be overbearing, There is a loss of utilities from both 28 and 29. They each lose a downstairs toilet and side access to their rear gardens which becomes shared access with the new build.

Sturminster Marshall Parish Council Comments:

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection, subject to condition. Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments: Officers Report:

This application was deferred from the meeting on 7 March, as Members wish to carry out a site visit.

The application comes to Committee as the Parish Council has shown concern over this proposal, having objected to an earlier withdrawn scheme, and the Officer recommendation is for approval.

This is a full application for the erection of a two bedroomed bungalow on land which at present is part of the rear gardens of Nos. 28 and 29 Churchill Crescent. It includes the attached brick sheds and passage ways for these properties, which front onto the road in a site area of 0.0262ha.

A similar application was deferred at the meeting on 3 January 2006 to enable Members to carry out a site visit . However it was withdrawn on 12th January 2006 at the applicant’s request, as the Ownership Certificate was incorrect

The difference between the withdrawn application and this current proposal is the length of the proposed plot has been reduced to some 31m, as opposed to some 46m in length in the previous proposal.

The site lying between Nos. 28 and 29 would provide two car parking spaces in front of the dwelling, as well as in front of the two parent properties. The application site lies within the Urban Area and therefore there is no policy objection to prevent redevelopment.

To the rear of the site is a strip of land currently used as part of the gardens of Nos. 28 and 29, but not in their ownership.

Pre-application negotiations have taken place to ensure that the established characteristic uniform pattern of development is retained in the Crescent, and no incongruous or congested form of development is created. A single storey hipped roof development is therefore proposed, which is considered to be in keeping with this development, where terraces of two- storey dwellings are interjected with single storey elements which are brick sheds and passage ways to the rear gardens. Some of these characteristic single storey side extensions have been converted into garages or additional living accommodation.

Car parking provision in front of the dwellings is characteristic of Churchill Crescent, and therefore this part of the application is also considered acceptable subject to conditions.

For these reasons the application is recommended for approval with appropriate conditions.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

3 Prior to the commencement of development, the first 2m metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, shall be laid out, constructed, hardened and surfaced, to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

4 The proposed facilities for the on-site parking of motor vehicles shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to use of the proposed development, and thereafter so retained.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development at all times in the interests of highway safety.

5 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 or porch 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 balance of private space provision on this estate which has been developed at an above average density.

Informatives:

64 1 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway the Area Highways Manager (East) should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification for a domestic access. He can be contacted at the Area Office (East), Stour Park, Blandford St Mary, Dorset, DT11 9LQ (Tel: 01258 450048).

2 In the interests of highway safety , provision shall be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the highway

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 17. Ref: 3/06/0113/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Existing Garage and Erect Single Storey Link Extension and Two Storey Extension Site Address: Hill House, Sandleheath Road, Alderholt, for Dr And Mrs Hywel Morris Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Site Notice expired: 3 March 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 February 2006

Alderholt Parish Council Objection on the following grounds: -Don't feel that an Comments: extension of this size is in keeping with the character of surrounding dwellings in this rural area.

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Before I can make my formal recommendation, Liaison Officer amendments should be noted.

Neighbour Comments:

Officers Report:

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

Hill House lies in the Area of Great Landscape Value on the east side of Sandleheath Road. It is at a higher level than the road. There is a 3m hedge on the front boundary and two accesses. There are no close neighbours.

It is an attractive brick and slate villa which is typical of the countryside in the eastern part of the district. The two storey oval extension would not detract from its character. The single storey extension replaces an existing garage albeit with a larger footprint and the adjacent outbuilding will be converted to form two garages. Thus the extent of the additional new building work to be carried out on the site is relatively limited. The design is to a high standard as required by policy LSCON2 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

In these circumstances there is a favourable recommendation.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

3 Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or such subsequent order as may revoke and re-enact the relevant provision of that Order, no building operation or alternative use shall be undertaken without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority (after due consultation with the Local Highway Authority) which would prevent the garage/parking space indicated on the approved plan from being used for the parking of a car.

Reason: To ensure sufficient parking is available on site.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 18. Ref: 3/06/0130/FUL

Proposal: -Retain 1.6m Fence adjacent to Bakers Lane and Erect New 2.0m Fence (Replace Existing) Adjacent to Holtwood Road Site Address: Rockstead, Bakers Lane, Holtwood, for Mr And Mrs Beynon Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Site Notice expired: 4 March 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 27 February 2006

Holt Parish Council Objection: We do not consider this application an Comments: improvement and still find the fencing too high, obtrusive and inappropriate in this rural location. The proposed hedge will reduce visibility onto the highway in the future.

66 Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection, subject to condition. Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments: Piers Butler Hillcrest, Holtwood In Support if they stain the fence

Mr P Aston Orchard End, Objects Gaunts Common Out of keeping

Dr And Mrs N Chambers Oak Concerns Cottage, Holtwood fence needs to be set back to allow hedge to grow

Mr And Mrs George Kingsettle Objection Lodge, Holtwood Fence is to stark and intrusive Concerns on quality and maintenance

Mr M Collinge Spread Oak, Object Bakers Lane Out of keeping Lack of maintenance

Officers Report:

This application is brought to Committee on the grounds of an objection from the Parish Council and five letters from local residents expressing concern about the impact of the fence.

In 2004 a 2.6 m high fence was erected on the front boundary of Rockstead and a part 2.0 m and part 1.6 m high fence on the side boundary adjacent to Bakers Lane (public right of way No 54). An application which sought retrospective planning permission to retain the fences (3/04/1552) was refused on 17 December 2004.

This application proposes reducing the height of the fence which is adjacent to Holtwood Lane to 2.0m and moving it back 3m from the road. The area between the fence and the highway will be planted with hazel bushes to soften its impact. The fence adjacent to Bakers Lane which is a gravel track is proposed to be retained but at a height throughout its length of 1.6m.

Clearly the existing impact is unacceptable in this attractive rural location. However, the re- siting and reduction in the height of the fence which runs parallel to the road together with the planting overcomes these concerns. The effect on the countryside and on local residential amenities of the fence on the side boundary is less significant. However, the element at 2.0 m. is visible at the junction of Holtwood Lane and Bakers Lane. Its reduction to 1.6 m. reduces that impact. The fences need to be stained to a darker colour so that they are less intrusive in this attractive part of the countryside.

Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

67 1 The fence adjacent to Holtwood Road shall be moved to the position shown on the plans hereby approved and reduced to a maximum of 2.0 m. in height within 3 months of the date of this permission.

Reason : To protect the appearance of the locality.

2 The fences shall be stained in a colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of this planning permission.

Reason : To protect the appearance of the locality.

3 The planting of hazel bushes between the fence and Holtwood Road shall be carried to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority, within 3 months of the date of this planning permission.

Reason : To protect the character of the locality.

4 The fence adjacent to Bakers Lane shall be reduced to a maximum of 1.6 m. in height within 3 months of the date of this permission.

Reason : To protect the appearance of the locality.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 19. Ref: 3/06/0154/FUL

Proposal: Variation of Condition to Existing Permission 3/98/0043 to Permit Opening Hours as Follows: Sunday, Monday and Tuesday to Midnight. Wednesday and Thursday to 00.30 Following Days and Friday and Saturday to 02.00 Following Day Site Address: Wimborne Kebab House, 17 Eastbrook Row, Crown Mead, for Kasim Cakir Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Fluvial Flooding Area Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Urban Areas LP Town Centre Policy Area LP Site Notice expired: 23 February 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 20 February 2006

Wimborne Minster Town Objection: Council Comments: The variation of the condition will remove the protection enjoyed by neighbours and make them liable to unnecessary noise and disturbance beyond the hours already suffered, late into the night and early morning.

68 Consultee Responses: V Hickman No objection

EDDC Environmental Health Division Whilst the later opening hours at the premises does have the potential to cause (mainly) noise disruption to the local area I feel Public Health has sufficient powers to control this through the statutory nuisance regime and the new licensing act controls. Therefore, I have no objections to this application.

Wimborne Civic Society Objection: There are no sound reasons given for extending permitted opening hours, indeed there is considerable potential for creating nuisance for nearby residents.

Neighbour Comments: Mrs Upson 10 Lewens Close, Objection Wimborne Ensure more noise/unsociable behaviour Increase in litter

Mr A Oliver Wit's End Corner, Strong objection 34 Park Lane Noise concerns Disturbance concerns Traffic concerns Litter concerns

Officers Report:

This application comes to committee as the observations of the Town Council conflict with the Officer recommendation for approval .

The Wimborne Kebeb House is situated on the corner of Crown Mead and the pedestrian walkway, Eastbrook Row, which is comprised of a terrace of 7 shops with storage at first floor level and car parking and servicing to the rear accessed from Crown Mead. The site is situated in the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area and in the Wimborne Commercial Centre.

The proposal is for a variation of condition of the existing opening hours to permit the opening hours as follows: Sunday, Monday and Tuesday to midnight, Wednesday and Thursday to 00.30 the following day, and Friday and Saturday to 02.00 the following day.

Planning approval for a restaurant was granted in 1998 (ref 98/0043) and relief of condition 7 to allow use as a take away was granted on appeal in February 1999. In May 2001 Sunday opening was granted from 12.00 to 23.00. (Ref 01/0567). However, in 2002, varying condition No.4 of 02/1348 to allow opening 12.00 to 11.30 Monday to Thursday, and to 11.45pm Friday, Saturday and Bank Holidays was refused on the grounds that the amenities of town centre residents had to be protected. A recent proposal to allow opening until 5am the following day seven days a week (ref 05/1601) was refused in January 2006 as it was considered that it would result in the intensification of use of the premises and in result in increased and prolonged noise and disturbance to town centre residents.

This current proposal would have far less impact on nearby residential properties than the earlier refused proposals due to the substantial reduction in proposed opening hours.

69 Furthermore this is a town centre location and other licensed premises, upon which there are no similar planning controls, some in close proximity to this site have been licensed to trade until 01:30/02:00 ensuring that persons will be in the area regardless of whether this application is approved or refused.

The Public Health Services consider their department has sufficient powers to control the potential mainly noise disruption through the statutory nuisance regime and the new licensing act controls. In addition there are no Police objections to the proposal and they did not object to the Licensing application.

Dorset Police stated that as with all premises that are subject to a premises licence, the option is given in the Licensing Act 2003 to responsible authorities and interested parties to seek a review of the licence in specified circumstances. That review application would go before a Licensing Sub - Committee who could order a reduction of hours if it was felt appropriate in the circumstances.

It is therefore considered that the powers of the Licensing Act are sufficient to ensure that local residents are adequately protected from unreasonable levels of noise, should problems occur in the future.

Therefore it is recommended that the condition be varied to incorporate the opening hours applied for.

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 use hereby permitted shall operate only as follows: Sunday 12.00 to midnight, Monday, Tuesday 9.00am to Midnight, Wednesday and Thursday 9.00am to 00.30 the following days, and Friday to Saturday 9.00am to 02.00 the following days.

Reason: In the interest of amenity of the occupiers of nearby residences.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 20. Ref: 3/06/0192/FUL

Proposal: Demolish Outbuildings and Erect New Bungalow

70 Site Address: 13 Churchill Close, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne, for N Hichens Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Site Notice expired: Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 14 March 2006

Sturminster Marshall Parish Objection Council Comments: Overdevelopment of plot Close proximity of borders Detrimental to street scene

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection, subject to conditions. Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments: Mr And Mrs Thomas 91B High Objection Street, Sturminster Marshall Close proximity Noise concerns

Mr And Mrs McCann 12 Objection Churchill Close, Sturminster Concerns with the boundary Marshall Loss of privacy Loss of light Not in keeping Overbearing impact

Helen Clark 91A High Street, Objection Sturminster Marshall Close proximity

Officers Report:

This application comes to Committee as the Parish Council is concerned about the alteration of this area, which it has strived to preserve in its original condition, and the officer recommendation is to approve.

This is a full application for the erection of a two bedroom bungalow on land which at present is part of the garden of No.13 Churchill Close and includes the attached brick outhouse and garage of that property, which fronts onto the road in an area of some 0.05ha. The existing driveway would accommodate a car parking space for the bungalow. A parking space would also be provided in front of the parent property for that dwelling’s use. This proposal has the same principles as the application opposite at 28/29 Churchill Close, which Members are in the process of considering elsewhere on this agenda and is the subject of a Site Visit.

The application site lies within the Urban Area in the corner of this Close which surrounds the rectangular shaped open space/ recreational ground. There is a very rigid pattern of development in this Close with pairs of semi detached properties and terraces of four properties separated by pairs of single storey attached outbuildings.

A previous application for the demolition of the outbuildings and the erection of a new two storey dwelling was refused in July 2005 (ref 05/0687) on the grounds that it would be out of keeping and adversely affect the appearance of this locality as well as being overbearing and oppressive to the neighbouring dwelling , No. 12 and would not provide adequate on site car parking.

However pre - application negotiations have now taken place to ensure that the established characteristic uniform pattern of development is retained in the Close, and no incongruous or congested form of development is created. A single storey hipped roof development is therefore proposed which would be in keeping with this development, where terraces of two storey dwellings are interjected with single storey elements which are brick sheds and passage ways to the rear gardens. Some of these characteristic single storey side extensions have been converted into garages as in this case, or additional living accommodation.

Car parking provision in front of the dwellings is characteristic of Churchill Close, and therefore this part of the application is also considered acceptable subject to conditions.

The design and appearance of the proposal is considered acceptable and does not look substantially different from the existing when viewed in the street scene. A bungalow is proposed which would ensure no loss of amenity to the neighbouring dwellings, nor problems with overlooking to them. The adjoining property, No.12 has a two storey side extension as well as a pitched roof garage close on the communal boundary. As there are only velux roof lights at first floor in the above extension there would not be any undue loss of amenity. The relationship with the parent dwelling is also considered acceptable. Only the roofs of the bungalows of Nos. 91a and 91b to the rear of the site are visible and as the proposed dwelling would have a rear garden of some 26m the amenities of these dwellings would not be unduly affected.

For these reasons the application is recommended for approval with appropriate conditions.

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

Conditions/Reasons:-

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

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

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

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

Reason: To prevent overdevelopment of the site.

4 The area shown on the submitted plans as car parking spaces shall be constructed, laid out and provided in all respects before the use hereby permitted is commenced and shall thereafter be kept available for use at all times; no permanent

72 development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access thereto and its use as car parking.

Reason: Development without the provision for and maintenance of adequate accommodation for the parking or garaging of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no windows or doors shall be inserted in the north and south elevations of the bungalow without prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent overlooking of neighbouring development.

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

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 21. Ref: 3/06/0215/FUL

Proposal: Single Storey Glazed Link Extension Between House And Barn

Site Address: Rushay House, Pentridge, Salisbury, for Mr And Mrs S Goodwin Constraints Groundwater Protection Zone Windfarm Consultation Zone Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Site Notice expired: 19 March 2006 Advert expired: 24 March 2006 Nbr-Nfn expired: 15 March 2006

Sixpenny Handley Parish Objection on the following planning grounds: Council Comments: 1) We would prefer the stable block to stay as it is -it is impractical to use as an entrance. 2) We would very much prefer to see the proposed new windows on the back of the house (i.e. three tall vertical windows) as horizontally placed windows, the vertical windows do not fit the shape of the roof and also minimise rather than maximise the wonderful view behind; they would also be ugly from Pembury Knoll. 3) The angle of the glazed link is not symmetrical with the

73 existing gable end. 4) We are not happy with the pseudo brown doors and would prefer conventional french doors.

We would be happy with this planning application should all the above items be addressed.

Consultee Responses: EDDC Design And No objections: The current submission appears to have Conservation addressed the points previously identified in the comments in respect of 3/05/0189/FUL.

Neighbour Comments: Mr John Miller 17 Pentridge, In Support Salisbury

Officers Report:

This application is brought to Committee for determination as the applicant is related to a member of staff.

Description of Proposal

This application proposes the erection of a glazed link between the main dwelling and the existing barn, which is to be converted to form part of the living accommodation. The glazed link is sited where there is already a linking roof structure between the two buildings. Alterations to this outbuilding include new windows and doors and the installation of a stainless steel flue to serve the fireplace for the new sitting room. The barn was constructed at the same time as the dwelling, and the proposal is for the accommodation within the barn to be used as ancillary to the main dwelling. On this basis, it is considered that the conversion of the barn to form living accommodation does not require planning permission, but the glazed link and alterations to the external appearance of the barn does require consent.

Planning History

The house and outbuilding were granted consent in 1990 under reference 3/90/0963. An application in 2005 under ref: 3/05/0189/FUL for a 2 storey extension linking the outbuilding and main dwelling, and the conversion and alterations to the outbuilding, were refused. This previous proposal was considered unacceptable due to its impact on the Conservation Area, countryside and Conservation Area, and also because the guest accommodation within the outbuilding was not considered to be properly integrated with the main dwelling and was considered to be tantamount to a separate unit of accommodation.

Description of Site

This site of 0.5ha is on the eastern side of the main road in Pentridge. There is a currently a relatively large 2 storey dwelling on the site and a large timber framed outbuilding linked to the main house by a bridging roof structure, which forms a car port area. The house and outbuilding are set a slightly higher level than the road and with only some front boundary hedgerow and tree screening, the buildings are clearly visible from the road.

Description of policy framework

74 The site lies within the Pentridge Conservation Area, in the countryside and within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Policies CSIDE1, LSCON1, BUCON1 and DES8 apply. The Supplementary Planning Guidance provided by the Countryside Design Summary and the Pentridge Conservation Area Appraisal are also relevant to this proposal.

Analysis of Issues

The principle issues on the site are the visual impact of the glazed link between the main dwelling and the outbuilding, and the alterations to the external appearance of the outbuilding on the Conservation Area.

This is considered to be a considerable improvement on the previous proposal. The glazed link still retains the visual separation between the main house and the barn. The external alterations to the barn include the installation of new windows and the erection of a stainless steel flue. These alterations still maintain the fundamental appearance of the barn as a separate identity from the main dwelling, which is important to retaining its subordinate appearance. The proposal preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This will be further aided by the submitted landscaping scheme which is proposed to the front of the site. A condition is proposed to secure its implementation.

Conclusions

It is considered that the proposal preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and that its architectural style, scale, materials and visual appearance are also acceptable. The proposal complies with Policy BUCON1 and DES8 of the EDLP.

Recommendation

This application 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.

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

3 The proposal for the landscaping of the site, as shown on the submitted drawing 0402-06 and supporting information by White of Witchampton received 10 March 2006, shall be carried out during the planting season October/march inclusive, (in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking etc. in BS4428:1969 (1979) immediately following commencement of the

75 development. Any plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be duly replaced and the whole scheme thereafter retained. Reason: To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site, in the interests of the visual amenities of the Pentridge Conservation Area, in accordance with policies BUCON1 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

Item Number: 22. Ref: 3/06/0233/FUL

Proposal: Raise Roof To Create First Floor Accommodation And New Conservatory Site Address: 63A Leigh Lane, Colehill, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs Nash Constraints Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (90m high) Site Notice expired: 19 March 2006 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 31 March 2006

Colehill Parish Council No objection: Please take due note of any objections from Comments: neighbours

Consultee Responses: Neighbour Comments: Mrs P Hann 12 Colborne Overlooking Avenue, Wimborne Increasing the intrusion on privacy Over development

Officers Report:

This application is before Members as a member of staff objected to a previous application for the enlargement of the roof. This previous planning application for the enlargement of the roof was permitted on the 27.10.2005 under Pl. Appn. 3/05/0912. This entailed raising the roof both across and along the depth of the plot with flat roofed dormers to the street elevation and the rear roof slope. This also included a hipped conservatory to the front elevation. It was considered the proposal visually pulled together the separate elements of the building and produced a more coherent structure. Representations were originally received from consultees, with regard to overlooking but this was not considered significant to merit a recommendation for refusal.

Subsequent to the issue of that approval an informal submission was received for an Officer’s opinion along the lines of the current application. This was later backed up by a model. It was considered that the proposal was unacceptable due to the increase in massing at first floor level due to the formation of a new cropped dormer on the front elevation and the

76 raised hipped dormer at the rear. These elements effectively lengthen the main ridge from 3.5m to 6m.

Despite the Officer’s negative opinion this application was subsequently received on 22 January 2006. It is considered the proposal fails Policy DES8 of the Local Plan due to the increased bulk and height and visual impact and its failure to harmonise with the character of the surrounding area.

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

Reasons:-

1 The proposed roof extension, especially the cropped gable on the front elevation, fails Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan due to its excessive bulk, height and visual impact which fails to harmonise with the general character of the area in which it is set.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

4. Appendices 4.1 None.

5. Background Papers 5.1 Planning application and history files relating to each application.