PLANNING COMMITTEE 12Th November, 2013 SCHEDULE OF
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PLANNING COMMITTEE 12th November, 2013 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS 1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS Purpose of Report: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that: the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Development Manager's recommendation. Lead Members: Cllr M Dyer Contact Officer: Giles Moir, Development Management Manager 2. Application Schedule No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/13/0452/FUL Land Adj Holt Green House, Holt Lane, Holt 16 2. 3/13/0464/FUL 76 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset 28 3. 3/13/0504/HOU 101 Sandy Lane, St Ives, Ringwood 49 4. 3/13/0505/HOU 10 Belle Vue Grove, West Moors, Ferndown 55 5. 3/13/0571/FUL 1 Bushmead Drive, Ashley Heath, Ringwood 59 6. 3/13/0670/FUL 18 Oaks Drive, St Leonards, Ringwood 71 7. 3/13/0681/FUL Mapperton Farm, Mapperton, Almer 79 8. 3/13/0701/FUL 1 Middlehill Road, Colehill, Wimborne 126 9. 3/13/0745/FUL Land To The East Of North East Of Honeybrook 135 Farm, Cranborne Road, Furzehill 10. 3/13/0752/FUL 1 Marshfield, Colehill, Wimborne 153 Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/13/0452/FUL Proposal: Erect a 3 bedroom detached dwelling house with parking and landscaping as amended by plan rec 9th July 2013 and 28th August 2013 Site Address: Land Adj Holt Green House, Holt Lane, Holt, for Mr & Mrs B Collins Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Green Belt LP Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Site Notice exp : 27 June 2013 Advert expired: Nbr -Nfn expired: 12 September 2013 Holt Parish Council Object - The proposed dwelling appears too big for Comments: the plot. The Parish Council considers it might be possible to erect a dwelling on this site but should be much smaller. In a rural village envelope being physically so close to neighbours and the barn it is not in keeping with the character of the village. We would prefer to see a detached garage. Further comments received 3.9.13: I can confirm that the Parish Council's comments remain the same and we would like the application to be referred to the planning committee only if at variance to officers recommendation Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section There are no trees of significance that would be adversely affected should planning permission be granted. I therefore have no arboricultural objections. EDDC Design And In my opinion, the key issues are 1), whether the Conservation siting, form and materials of the proposed dwelling adversely affects the setting to the listed building. 2), whether such impacts may be mitigated and 3), whether such impact justifies the refusal of the current proposal. Holt Green Farm House dates from the 17th century and constructed in cob with a timber frame and faced in colour-washed plaster. It is one and half storeys with a distinctive thatched roof. It is listed, Grade II. The farm also included the adjacent range of buildings, known as 'The Courtyard'. These one and two-storey buildings have since been sensitively converted to residential dwellings and sold off. However, the link between farmhouse and farm buildings is still apparent. The vernacular farm house has a rural setting. The open space between it and Holt Green House helps reinforce this setting. This spacious quality was noted by an Inspector when dismissing an Appeal against a pair of semi-detached cottages (June 2008). The current design and access statement notes in paragraph 2.2 that, since this time 'things have moved on and new development has been allowed in Holt that retains the spaciousness around the dwellings'. There appears to be perhaps two recently-constructed dwellings in the vicinity, neither of which affects the setting of a listed building. I would suggest that the issue of spaciousness is as relevant today as in 2008. The critical difference between the current proposal and that previously refused is the position of the building on the plot. The new proposal is shown 8m behind the front building line of the listed building - compared with the earlier scheme, 3m forward of this line. A building in this new set-back position would help to retain some element of spaciousness and its impact on the setting to the listed building would be reduced. The proposed dwelling is designed with double pile roofs, filled in to form a flat roof, together with two large, single-storey 'extensions', one at the rear; the other attached to the north gables. This design allows a relatively low ridge height (7.4m) - not significantly higher than that of the listed building - and a deep floor-plan (8.0m). It is shown to be constructed in brick with a slate roof. The elevation plan features some good detailing, but draws few references from its neighbours. Its form and materials relate particularly uncomfortably against the organic form of the vernacular listed building. In my opinion, although setting the building back helps in respect to the spaciousness issue, I consider that the proposed dwelling is too large for this rather cramped and irregularly-configured plot. And although a well-treed frontage would help soften the impact of the dwelling, this cannot be guaranteed. A building having a more simple form should be considered, such as a green oak cottage (with or without a thatched roof), or a barn form to echo those that flank the site. I think there is a better solution that could impact less on the setting of the listed building, and on this basis I recommend that the application should be refused. However, were you minded to approve the current submission I recommend the following conditions are included: 1. All windows to be set back within 100mm reveals. 2. All windows to be in timber with matching casements and painted (colour to be agreed). 3. Barge-boards and soffits shall be painted or stained black. 4. Rainwater goods shall be in black. 5. Detailed landscape scheme to be submitted. 6. No structure of any kind shall be permitted forward of the dwelling. I note revised plans have been received in order to address the comments previously made by the Conservation Officer in July 2013. The revised plans have removed some of the bulkiness identified, by removing the single storey element closest to the listed building. The changes made to the flat roof element of the main roof, and the height of the garage roof are noted, and accepted. These changes help to lessen the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring houses, and the street scene. I have some reservations about the overall design of the house, which could be more imaginative, but accept that there are a number of modern houses in close proximity to the site of similar articulation. If you are minded to consider approval, I suggest the following conditions: 1. All windows to be set back within 100mm reveals. 2. All windows to be in timber with matching casements and painted (colour to be agreed) 3. Barge boards and soffits to be stained or painted black 4. All rainwater goods shall be in black. 5. Detailed landscape scheme to be submitted. 6. No structure of any kind shall be permitted forward of the dwelling. 7. Any new gates, fences, walls or means of enclosure proposed will need to be approved by the LPA. County Highways I refer to the amended plan 2595-01B Development Liaison Officer The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION to the proposal and I have forwarded the revised plan to the Rights of Way team for their direct comment to you. County Rights Of Way The proposed works are in the vicinity of Bridleway 40 Officer - Holt, as recorded on the County Definitive Map and Statement of rights of way. However, I am unaware of any unrecorded paths that may be affected. The agent contacted me because my colleagues in Highways flagged up possible encroachment onto the bridleway as a result of the original plans. The plans have now been amended and I am assured that no new fences will be installed on the right of way. It is considered that the bridleway rights extend from boundary hedge to boundary hedge. Taking this into account, I have no adverse comments to make. It should be noted that the use of this bridleway by vehicular traffic without lawful authority is an offence contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988. Any damage to the surface of the path attributable to the development must be repaired to Dorset County Council's specification, in accordance with Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980. The free passage of the public on all rights of way must not be obstructed at any time nor must its historic or recorded width be impinged on. If the public are unlikely to be able to exercise their public rights on the above paths then Temporary Path Closure Orders must be obtained. These can be applied for through this office but the application must be completed and returned at least thirteen weeks before the intended closure date. It should be noted that there is a fee applicable to this application. Officers Report: Neighbour Representations The occupants of Holt Green Farm Cottage have raised objection on the grounds that their privacy would be diminished, natural light to their kitchen would be reduced, the scale of building and its proximity to the site boundaries would be uncharacteristic and will dominate the view from the east side of the Cottage.