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Purpose of Report: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.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. The residents also express concern about the increase in traffic in the lane.
The occupants of Holt Green House raise concerns about the positioning of the north east boundary, and disagree with the Parish Council request for a detached garage as it would be closer to their property, higher and take away more light than the proposed attached garage.
One letter of support has been received which acknowledges that the property is substantially smaller and it would smarten up the neglected site.
This application is on the agenda for consideration by the local planning authority because the recommendation conflicts with the views expressed by the Parish Council.
Site description
The 0.09ha site lies within the village infilling policy area in the older part of the village of Holt as defined in the East Dorset Local Plan. The application site
comprises a plot of land accessed from and on the north side of a short narrow country lane opposite the Old Inn Public House.
Immediately adjacent to the site is an attractive render and thatch Grade 2 listed building (Holt Green Farm Cottage), and a large detached two storey dwelling (Holt Green House) is located close to the eastern boundary of the site. The application site has been severed from Holt Green House and contains an open air swimming pool.
There are agricultural fields on the southern side of the lane and the agricultural buildings behind Holt Green Farm Cottage have been converted to residential properties which front a courtyard behind the listed cottage.
There are a variety of dwelling types and plot sizes in vicinity of the site but dwellings in the vicinity are predominantly two storey detached properties.
The proposal
The application seeks to erect a 3 bedroom dwellinghouse on land adjacent to Holt Green House on land severed from and to the north west of that property. The amended plans remove the single storey element on the north side elevation which contained a study and a bedroom.
History
An outline application to erect a single dwelling house was refused and then subsequently dismissed on appeal in 1991 (3/91/0129).
In his decision letter dismissing the appeal the Inspector considered that "the erection of a dwelling on your client's site would not be infilling, because the site is not a small gap in an otherwise continuously developed frontage, and that it would be contrary to the Council's policies".
He further considered that the size and configuration of the site were such that the proposed dwelling would either give the impression of being close to Holt Green House and the buildings to the NW or that it would be smaller than some of the other dwellings nearby. He concluded, "in either case, I consider that the proposed development would appear cramped and out of place in this attractive rural settlement. In addition, although the remaining curtilage of Holt Green House would be substantial in area its shape would appear awkward and contrived and the space immediately adjacent to the building would be greatly reduced. In my view, the proposed development would unacceptably detract from the visual character of the area and should not therefore be permitted."
An application for a pair of semi-detached dwellings on the site was refused in August 2007 (3/07/0817) for the following reasons:
1. "The erection of this pair of semi-detached dwellings on a small plot is not compatible with, and does not reflect, its surroundings and the proposed development would therefore be intrusive and out of keeping with the generally spacious nature of Holt village to the detriment of the character of this particularly
attractive settlement. The application is therefore contrary to policies GBV2 and GB7 of the East Dorset Local Plan which requires proposals to maintain or improve the scale, character and form of the settlement and policy DES8 which seeks developments which will harmonise with the general character of the areas in which they are set."
2. "The form, siting and design of the proposed development would adversely affect the setting of the adjacent Grade 2 thatched listed building (Holt Green Farm Cottage) and would therefore be contrary to policy BUCON8 of the East Dorset Local Plan."
In dismissing the subsequent appeal the Inspector acknowledged that since the previous appeal, the LPA had adopted the East Dorset Local Plan and Westlake House and Walnut Tree House have been built off Holt Lane; even so, he considered that "these properties maintain and reflect the spacious character of detached houses which typify the village scene in Holt".
The Inspector stated that "In the view along the lane, I find that the gap comprising the site not only emphasises the spaciousness of Holt Green House but also adds to the rural appearance of the lane which contributes to the setting of Holt Green Farm Cottage". He acknowledged that the proposed pair of houses would be set forward of Holt Green House and Holt Green Farm Cottage and he concluded that they would "have a greater degree of prominence in the view along the lane even allowing for the informal arrangement of the existing buildings".
The Inspector considered that "the semi detached pair would stand close to the boundary with the cottage and, while the access to rear garaging would run along the other side boundary, the dwellings would largely fill the width of the land and therefore would appear cramped on the site and squeezed in between the framing dwellings. With very small gardens as a consequence of the limited dimensions of the site and lacking the sense of spaciousness that is so strongly characteristic of Holt, I consider that the dwellings in this proposed development would be incompatible with this definitive form of the village." The Inspector considered that "Holt Green Farm Cottage is an attractive thatched property; principally fronting the lane, its gable and return wing facing the site are apparent in the perspective of the lane. Not only would this proposal adversely impact upon the spaciousness of Holt Green House but, in markedly closing down the space between it and Holt Green Farm Cottage, the paired houses positioned as proposed would also materially diminish the distinctiveness of the listed cottage in its setting as perceived in views into and on the lane".
With regard to design, the Inspector concluded that semi detached houses "are not typically found in the village and therefore in my view the proposal does not take any significant cue from existing houses in Holt. Perception of the tight nature of the proposed dwellings on the plot would in my view be compounded by the strongly horizontal form of the building, an element of which is the style of its principal fenestration. Centred around a pair of porches, the symmetrically balanced pair of houses would lack an organic quality...".
All these considerations led the Inspector to conclude that "the proposal would be a discordant development in this part of the village scene".
Policy Context
The National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF states that: o housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 49); o Local Planning Authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area (para 53); o the importance of good design is emphasised (para 56). o decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive, will function well and add to the overall quality of the area by responding to local character and reflecting the identity of local surroundings (para 58). o Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (para 64).
Core Strategy Pre-Submission document April 2012 Policy HE2 reiterates the requirements set out in Local Plan policy DES8 that seek to ensure that proposals are compatible with their surroundings and will harmonise with the townscape and general character of the areas in which they are set. Policy LN1 requires all new housing to be built to meet minimum living space standards for both internal and external areas and until an SPD is produced to set out the detailed requirements, the Council will apply the Homes and Community Agency Housing Quality Indicators in relation to private open space, unit sizes, unit layout and accessibility within the unit. Policy LN2 states that a minimum density of net 30dph will be encouraged, unless this would conflict with the local character and distinctiveness of an area where a lower density is more appropriate.
Considerations
Holt is identified in the Local Plan as having a cohesive built character and it is considered suitable for limited infilling. Policies GB7, GBV1, GBV2, HODEV1, HODEV2 and DES8 of the EDLP apply to the consideration of this application. Notwithstanding the history as set out above, the Local Plan policies require careful consideration of the proposal's relationship to and impact upon the character of the area and amenities of adjacent properties and highway safety. The concerns of the Parish Council are noted. Consideration needs to be given to whether the characteristics of the current proposal differ sufficiently from the previously refused scheme, and whether there have been any changes in the circumstances of the site or to the policy context to justify an approval of this application.
Impact on character of area
Although policy BUCON8 has not been saved, the adjacent listed building is a heritage asset and in accordance with the NPPF it is necessary to consider the extent to which the proposal will impact on the setting of the Listed building.
Regard needs to be given to the concerns previously expressed by the LPA and supported by the Inspector about the appropriateness of the development on this plot, and the loss of garden associated with Holt Green House.
The plot appears overgrown and has apparently been separated from Holt Green House for some time. The existing curtilage of Holt Green House is similar to that previously indicated in the 2007 scheme (approximately 550m2), but compared to the appeal scheme the development plot has been extended to the rear by approximately 50m2.
The development dismissed on appeal in 2007 proposed a pair of semi detached properties set forward of the adjacent dwellings. The Inspector acknowledged that semi detached houses are not typically found in the village and the perception of the tight nature of the proposed dwellings on the plot would "be compounded by the strongly horizontal form of the building". The 2007 building had a two storey footprint of 109m2 and the building had a width of 13.5m. The current proposal has a two storey footprint of 84m2 and a two storey width of approximately 8.6m.
Although the proposed dwelling would be visually evident because of its two storey gabled design, the building would be set back from the front elevation of Holt Green House by approximately 5m, and Holt Green Farm Cottage by approximately 6m. The eaves and ridge height of the proposed dwelling at 5m and 7.3m would be 0.5m lower than the height of the semi detached dwelling dismissed on appeal. The single storey garage of the new dwelling would be approximately 6m away from the rear wall of Holt Green House, and the two storey side elevation would be approximately 12m away from Holt Green Farm Cottage.
Given these separation distances and the set back from the adjacent dwellings, and subject to appropriate landscaping and boundary treatment, it is considered that the proposed new dwelling would not have a significant detrimental impact on the streetscene or on the setting of the listed building.
In combination with the revised siting of the building and the enlarged plot area, the characteristics of the proposed dwelling represent significant differences compared to the appeal scheme. Notwithstanding reservations with regard to the design of the proposed building, given the varied characteristics of the buildings in vicinity of the site it is considered that on balance the new building would not appear visually incongruous or detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is sufficiently different to the appeal scheme to enable the LPA to recommend approval, and it is not considered that a refusal on the basis of Holt Green House having a limited curtilage could be justified when its usable curtilage exceeds 550m2.
Amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings:
When considering the application for a pair of semis, the appeal Inspector considered concerns expressed by the occupiers of Holt Green Farm Cottage with regard to the impact on their amenities and he acknowledged that there was a patio and lawn area between the dwelling and the walled boundary to the site. Although the open aspect beyond the wall would change, he considered that "the gable end would not be
unduly obtrusive in relation to this garden space, nor would the building result in shading to any significant degree".
The scale and siting of the proposed dwelling is considered to have an appropriate physical relationship to the adjacent properties.
Although the siting of the new dwelling will enable some overlooking to the side of Holt Green Farm Cottage, the nearest first floor window in the front elevation would serve an en suite and this could be conditioned to require obscured glazing. The bedroom windows would be further away from the cottage and any views would be oblique thereby minimising any overlooking or loss of privacy to the occupiers of Holt Green Farm Cottage.
The windows in the facing elevation of Holt Green House are predominantly secondary in function and the proposed new dwelling would not have any significant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of that property.
The distance and oblique line of sight to the rear gardens of the properties fronting Holt Lane are considered sufficient to mitigate any significant loss of privacy to those properties from the first floor windows in the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling.
Given the characteristics and siting of the current proposal, it is considered that a refusal on the basis of a harmful impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the Cottage could not be sustained.
Parking and Highway safety
No highway objection is raised to the proposal, and an informative is proposed to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect the right of way at the front of the site.
Unilateral Agreement:
The application is accompanied by a Completed Unilateral agreement which would secure contributions towards transport infrastructure and mitigation of impact on designated nature conservation sites.
Conclusion:
The current proposal has a different visual and physical relationship to the plot, adjacent properties and the streetscene and it is considered sufficiently different to enable an alternative decision to the previously dismissed appeal proposal. Notwithstanding reservations about the overall design of the house, it is considered on balance that the new dwelling and associated parking provision would not be materially detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and it would therefore accord with Policies DES8, GBV2, GB7, HODEV1 and HODEV2 of the EDLP.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans Location Plan drawing no.2595-01C; Floor Plans drawing no.2595-02B; Proposed Materials drawing nos.2595-03A, 04A, 05A and 06A; Street Elevation drawing no.2595-07A Site lines on Plan 2595-08;.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no outbuildings or extensions to the dwelling (including dormers and roof alterations) shall be constructed without express planning permission first being obtained.
Reason: Any enlargement of the approved house in accordance with Classes A and B or erection of outbuildings in accordance with Class E could significantly impact upon the character and openness of the site, the balance of private space provision, and may be detrimental to the setting of the adjacent Listed building and the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings. Such consequences would be contrary to advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, and contrary to Policies DES8, HODEV1, HODEV2, GB7 and GBV2 of the East Dorset Local Plan adopted 2002.
4 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority, and thereafter retained.
Reason: To maintain local amenity and to secure well planned development
5 Notwithstanding the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall include the following details:
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.
These elements shall be completed in all respects before the final completion of the development and thereafter retained.
Reason: Having regard to the proximity to the listed building, these features are considered necessary to enhance the appearance of the new dwelling and to secure well planned development.
6 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the access, turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 2595-01C has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
7 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.
8 Plans and particulars showing the alignment height and materials of all walls, gates, 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 hereby approved, and the approved details 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.
Informatives:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.
In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application: the applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.
2 The proposed works are in the vicinity of Bridleway 40 - Holt, as recorded on the County Definitive Map and Statement of rights of way.
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 the Public Rights of Way office at Dorset County Council 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.
3 In determining this application the local planning authority has taken into account the policies of the Government which are set out in the Planning Policy Framework 2012 and, in particular, paragraphs 7, 9-14, 17, 49, 53, 60, 61, 63-66
4 Implementation of this consent is subject to a unilateral undertaking dated 23rd September 2013 to secure: - the appropriate contribution in relation to Heathland mitigation as required by the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2012-2014 Supplementary Planning Document. - the appropriate transport infrastructure contribution in accordance with the South East Dorset Transport Contribution Scheme 2 Supplementary Planning Document April 2012.
5 The applicant(s) is (are) advised that the proposed development is situated in close proximity to the property boundary and "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996" is therefore likely to apply. An explanatory booklet relating to this Act is available free of charge from The DoE Publications Despatch Centre, Blackhorse Road, London SE99 6TT. Tel 0181 691 9191 (fax 0181 694 0099). Alternatively, copies of the booklet may be available from the District Council (subject to availability).
Policy Considerations and Reasons
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 HODEV1 HODEV2 GB7 GBV1 GBV2
Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/13/0464/FUL
Proposal: Erection of 64 bedroom care home (Use Class C2), with associated access, parking and landscaping as amended by plans received 25th July 2013. Site Address: 76 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset, for Castlemead Group Limited Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 400m Consultation Area Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp : 12 July 2013 Advert expired: 19 July 2013 Nbr -Nfn expired: 14 August 2013
Verwood Town Council No objection Comments:
Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has no objection in Development Liaison Officer principle subject to an acceptable amended Travel Plan being submitted showing the following revisions upon receipt of which final observations will be provided: The site vehicular access onto Ringwood Road should remain as a vehicle crossing for the benefit of pedestrians. The existing vehicle crossing of the footway of Crescent Road should be removed and replaced with standard raised footway with full face kerb. Travel Plan 1. The relevance of the New Forest (3.1.8) to this application is not understood - It is presumed this is a cut and paste from another TA. 2. The monitoring period DCC prefer and in line with its Travel Plan Fees would be 5 years, so would have a 3 month baseline to inform the full travel plan, then surveys at year 3 and 5. 3. Perhaps all of the report could be reviewed again by Entran - point 2.2.11 doesn't have an ending and 2.2.10 doesn't really flow. 4. 3.1.9 - could the actual no of car parking spaces be clarified. This point says 24 but the plan shows 27 inc disabled and 5.1.3 says 26. 5. 3.2.2 - this should read 'will introduce' rather than 'we will seek to introduce' which might mean it may never happen. 6. 4.2.1 - is this a 60 or 64 bed nursing home (5.1.1) 7. Cycle parking, is this 4 spaces as per 3.1.10 or 10 spaces as per 5.1.3 8. The TA and DTP continually mentions maximum of 24 staff on site any one time. Could there be some clarification on this, as it is assumed there will be
handover time, so there will be people on shift and people coming off shift at the same time I understand the reason for the comments about the rear pedestrian entrance but this could be a useful entrance to enable employees or visitors from the south of the site to walk and cycle. In reality if people wanted to park in the street, then not having the pedestrian entrance will not stop them. A monitoring fee of £700 is required for this site, which would include officer time and travel to support the development of the plan and to comment/approve monitoring reports from the 3 surveys. The payment of this should be made immediately if approved. Overall this is a good travel plan but consider the above amendments and another review are be made ensure accuracy. Further email recd. 25.9.2013: I write further to my previous observations. The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the conditions.
EDDC Tree Section Located within and adjacent to the application site's curtilage are protected Oaks that make a significant contribution to visual amenities of the locality. These trees are clearly visible from the adjacent roads and properties and they are therefore considered to be a material constraint within this proposal. Of particular importance is Oak (T12), which is located adjacent to the site's southern boundary and Crescent Road. In the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), dated the 12th April 2013, the importance of this Oak was clearly established. It was given an 'A1' categorisation and it was described as a large and prominent tree with a high amenity value. It was also made clear that this tree could not be retained as it posed to great a constraint to the proposed development of the nursing home. It was acknowledged that should it be retained construction requirements would entail the removal of a significant proportion of its crown and encroachment into its root protection area (RPA). Finally, it was also acknowledged that as well as foreseeably posing an adverse effect on the tree's health and stability the spatial relationship between the tree and structure would be incongruous and unsustainable. These points were discussed further during a site meeting on the 8th July 2013, during which I re- iterated that I was unable to offer my support for this proposal as I could not support the removal of this prominent landscape feature. This is a large site with significant space available to construct a care home
without the requirement for arguably the most important and prominent tree being removed. Subsequent to this meeting, an addendum to the original AIA has been submitted. Within this addendum specific reference has now been made to an old, small wound on the tree's main stem at ~2m above ground level. It has been suggested that the remnants of an old fungal fruiting body was found at this wound and that this may possibly be Innonotus dryadeus. The photograph within the AIA is unclear and from this it is not possible to make a positive identification, which has also been acknowledged by the applicant's consultant after actually observing the remnants. Since receiving this information I have re-inspected this Oak and the wound and I am of the view that it is unlikely to be infected with Innonotus dryadeus. The wound was small, partially occluded and there was no evidence of any significant decay. I also observed no evidence of remnants of a fungal fruiting body and there were no signs to suggest that a bracket fungus had been attached to the main stem at the point shown in the submitted photograph. This particular fungus is predominantly found at ground level, on and in between buttress roots and it is yet to be observed over 2m above ground level. The fungal fruiting body occurs from May to October and it is not uncommon for the remnants to be present the following year. No new fungal fruiting body was observed in July of this year and when the tree was last inspected in September there was also no evidence of a fungal fruiting body emerging. I am therefore inclined to think that the unidentified fungus is not Innonotus. This view is further re-enforced given its location on the main stem at 2m above ground level. It may well be feasible to have the asserted fungal remnants identified by a mycologist. However, should the applicant be concerned that the tree's structural stability has been compromised as a result of this unidentified fruiting body, further investigations should be undertaken. Such investigations could include undertaking a PICUS tomogram. If the tree's structural integrity has been compromised the tomogram will clearly illustrate this. I am happy to assess any new information that is submitted to substantiate the consultant's concerns. I have undertaken preliminary investigations using a sounding hammer and the resonance was typical of sound wood. This was similarly the case when I tested a larger area of the tree's main stem and the buttress roots that were accessible. I therefore do not consider
the consultant's assertion regarding the presence of a possible, unidentified fruiting body to be of any significant concern and am of the opinion that the removal of this prominent landscape feature is not justified at the current time. I do not concur that the proposed replacement tree planting will in 20 years mitigate for the loss of Oak (T12). Oak (T12) is a substantial tree. Whilst the two Oaks proposed at the front of the site adjacent to Ringwood Road would in many years make a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the locality, they would not necessarily mitigate for the amenity lost by the removal of Oak (T12). Whilst Oak (T12) is visible and relatively prominent from Ringwood Road, it is from the surrounding properties and adjacent road(s) that it is most prominent. The proposed Oaks adjacent to Ringwood Road would therefore not mitigate for the loss of amenity to the south of the site. Although it is proposed to plant a total of seven Birches on the southern aspect of the site, again I remain unconvinced that these would mitigate for the lost amenity should Oak (T12) be removed. The proposed planting locations are unsuitable and unsustainable as they are all located directly adjacent to the neighbouring properties boundaries. Many of the Birches would not be able to reach their potential final stature as a result of this and would have to be pruned on a regular basis to ensure that sufficient clearance was maintained between their crowns and the adjacent structures. Not only will this restrict them from maturing unhindered, the pruning would have an adverse impact on their amenity value. Birch are a species of tree that generally respond poorly to pruning therefore should this be required on a regular basis it is likely to have an adverse impact on their long term health. The proximity of the two Birches to mature Oaks is ill-considered and will result in a poor growth habit as the Birch respond to light competition. As a result they will never become prominent specimens. Finally, as Birch are pioneer species and relatively short lived they could never therefore truly replace the amenity that would be lost by the removal of Oak (T12), as set out in paragraph 13.89 of the Local Plan. It is not inconceivable to suggest that this Oak could survive for centuries. It is also now being suggested that Oak (T9) and (T10) form the main arboricultural element within the street scene. Whilst I do not dispute that these trees are visually prominent specimens, I am still of the opinion that Oak (T12) is the most important specimen
within the application site, primarily due to its prominence and overall form. Whilst Oak (T9) and (T10) are both considered to be a material constraint within the proposal, they have grown as companions and their form and structural condition are not as good as Oak (T12) and for this reason they have been given a 'B2' categorisation. Their foliage density is less than that of Oak (T12) and their useful life expectancy has been downgraded as a result of this. It is therefore even more important that Oak (T12) is retained. Finally, paragraph 118 of the NPPF also states that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Whilst Oak (T12) is not a veteran, it is an aged tree that has the potential to become a veteran. This should not therefore be discounted. Given the above, I recommend that this current application is refused. Reason for Refusals: 1. Located within and adjacent to the application site are protected Oaks that are subject of the East Dorset District Council, Newtown Road No.1 and Crescent Road No.21, Verwood, Tree Preservation Orders. These trees make a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the locality and they are clearly visible from many of the surrounding properties and roads. Of particular importance is Oak (T12), which it is proposed to remove in order for the care home to be constructed. This Oak is a significant specimen that has been given an 'A1' categorisation in accordance with BS5837:2012 and it is therefore a material constraint within this proposal. The removal of this Oak would have a significant adverse impact on visual amenities of the locality and the Council are of the opinion the proposed mitigation planting would not sufficiently replace the amenity lost as a result of this Oak being removed. The Council are therefore of the opinion that this proposal is contrary to Policies DES5 and DES7 of the East Dorset Local Plan and policy HE3 of the emerging Core Strategy. 2. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that planning permission should be refused if it results in the loss of aged or veteran trees, unless the need for and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. The proposal would result in the loss of an aged tree which makes a significant
contribution to the visual amenities of the locality. The Council are of the view that considerable space is available within the application site to construct a care home and retain this prominent aged Oak. Inadequate justification has been provided by the applicant in terms of the need for and benefits of the development to justify the loss of such an important tree and therefore the Council considers that the benefits of the current development do not clearly outweigh the tree's loss and the proposal would be contrary to Paragraph 118 of the NPPF.
Natural England Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) Natural England's comments in relation to this application are provided in the following sections. Statutory nature conservation sites - no objection This application is in close proximity to the Bugdens Copse & Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. This application is also in close proximity to the Verwood Heaths Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI forms part of the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Natural England advises your authority that the proposal, if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which Dorset Heaths has been classified. Natural England therefore advises that your Authority is not required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment to assess the implications of this proposal on the site's conservation objectives. In addition, Natural England is satisfied that the
proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the Verwood Heaths SSSI has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. Protected species Bats It is noted that a survey for European Protected Species has been undertaken in support of this proposal. Natural England does not object to the proposed development. On the basis of the information available to us, our advice is that the proposed development would be unlikely to affect bats. For clarity, this advice is based on the information currently available to us and is subject to any material changes in circumstances, including changes to the proposals or further information on the impacts to protected species. We have not assessed the survey for badgers, barn owls and breeding birds2 or widespread reptiles. These are all species protected by domestic legislation and you should use our protected species standing advice to assess the adequacy of any surveys, the impacts that may results and the appropriateness of any mitigation measures. The advice we are giving at the present time relates only to whether, in view of the consultation materials presently before us (including with reference to any proposed mitigation measures), the proposal is likely to be detrimental to the maintenance of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (i.e. the 'Favourable Conservation Status' test). We have not considered whether the proposal satisfies the three licensing tests or whether a licence would be issued for this proposal. This advice is based on the information currently available to us and is subject to any material changes in circumstances, including changes to the proposals or further information on the protected species. Local wildlife sites If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local wildlife site, eg Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully
understand the impact of the proposal on the local wildlife site, and the importance of this in relation to development plan policies, before it determines the application. Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that 'Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity'. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that 'conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat'. Landscape enhancements This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.
Adult And Community The demography of Dorset is thus: Dorset is a net Services importer of older people and exporter of younger working age people. This situation is compounded year on year. We already face challenges in having sufficient numbers of people to participate in the social care workforce to care for a population of older people that is in excess of the national average. A real concern for the County Council is that any further increase in migration of older people to Dorset places an additional burden upon local infrastructures. This additional demand cuts across various spheres including social care, health care, transport and roads,
and cultural and leisure services. Further in-migration of older people to Dorset will also create additional pressure and capacity issues for our local fieldwork staff along with associated finance, admin and contracts staff. Therefore the County Council is keen to learn where the developer envisages potential residents will come from. It is possible that people moving into the development will come from outside Dorset and this would be a cause for concern for the reasons above. We would be grateful for clarification on this matter.
An important additional concern regarding the development relates to the capital threshold rules . Once an individual's resources deplete to less than £23,250 the County Council is liable to pay for the care of that individual within the care home. This development raises the possibility of an additional call upon the Dorset Council Tax payer, should privately paying residents from outside Dorset move into the development and exhaust their own ability to pay. The County Council is concerned with meeting the needs of the whole of the community. This includes meeting the needs of those who require affordable residential and nursing home care by way of needing to have their fees met by the public purse. If a care home must be built we would expect the provider to address local need and offer places to the whole of the Verwood and East Dorset community and not just those who can afford to pay for themselves. Accordingly, we would request that 25% of the places being made available to the County Council and Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group at the public rate. We would be grateful if the Planning Authority would ask the applicant for information relating to: Any local needs analysis that supports the development. The Socio-economic and geographical groups that the provision is aimed at. The anticipated levels of fees to be charged. Any liaison and dialogue held with local stakeholders.
EDDC Public Health - The noise assessment indicates that the noise from Housing And Pollution the total plant is unlikely to cause a nuisance to the neighbours. I would recommend a condition along the lines of "The external plant including, air conditioning, refrigeration, kitchen extraction and heating should be installed as specified in the Noise Assessment by Environ UK Ltd (August 2013) so that the total noise /
rating level does not exceed background noise at the nearest noise sensitive properties." - The noise assessment states the kitchen ventilation plant will only operate between 07:00 and 19:00. I have not asked for this and it is quite a determining factor for their predicted night time noise so I wonder if these times should be conditioned? - I note that the kitchen extract vents quite high and some distance from neighbouring properties. However, I would be interested to know if there is any odour abatement system installed Some other comments which are more management issues but it is worthy of note even at this stage. 1. The smoking shelter - this department has had complaints is similar situations where staff (and sometimes residents) are using and talking in the smoking shelter in the early hours of the morning resulting in disturbance to neighbours. 2. Noise of early morning refuse collection is frequently and issue and I would recommend that there are no deliveries or collection to the site between 22:00 and 07:00.
Officers Report:
This application is brought to Committee for determination as there are five or more letters of support, which are at variance with the officer's recommendation of refusal.
Neighbour Representations
Representations of support have been received from 7 properties. Representations raising objections have been received from 11 properties and the following concerns are raised: • Inadequate parking • Parking on, and possibility of rear access to Crescent Road • Access opposite a petrol station is unsafe • Scale of building • Proposal constitutes overdevelopment • Impact on amenity of adjacent dwellings particularly with regard to overlooking/loss of privacy, nuisance from extractor fans, overbearing due to proximity and size of building • Loss of trees • Impact on infrastructure in Verwood • Need • Staff and residents not local • Inadequate communal gardens • Congestion on road network and impact on service and emergency vehicles • Impact on utilities
Site Description
The Application site lies within the urban area of Verwood and comprises 0.44 ha of land located on the south side of the B3801 Ringwood Road opposite a petrol filling station.
The site is currently being used as a caravan storage facility and the site frontage to Ringwood Road comprises a railing fence and gates set back from the highway behind a wide dropped kerb which also provides vehicular access to the detached two storey dwelling at no.76.
The southern boundary of the site runs along the northern edge of a bend in Crescent Road onto which there is a historic but little used access. There are mature Oak trees along this site boundary which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order. With the exception of the petrol station opposite, development immediately to the north, south, east and west of the site comprises a mixture of single and two storey dwellings.
The site is flat and is covered with hardstanding to allow maximum storage capacity for the caravans. The boundaries to the adjacent properties are mainly marked by 1.8m high close boarded fencing and bushes and there are also a number of trees along the east and west boundaries.
Proposal
This application seeks to erect a 64 bed care home with associated service accommodation. 25 car parking spaces are shown in front of the building with vehicular access from Ringwood Road.
The proposal includes amenity space for the future occupiers in the form of three separate garden areas totalling 1565 m2.
Planning History
The site's use for mobile caravan storage/sales dates back to the 1970's and there is no relevant history to this proposal.
The application follows informal pre-application discussions with officers in February and August last year when concerns were expressed regarding the scale and form of the development proposed. In summary these concerns related to the size, bulk and ground coverage of the building, its proximity to adjacent residential properties and their private amenity areas, the visual prominence of the built form, limited scope for landscaping, potential noise and disturbance, concerns relating to protected trees located on and adjacent to the site's southern boundary, trees located within the curtilage of no.3 Heathlands Close, and the extent and arrangement of on-site parking.
Although some adjustments to design and footprint have been made the scheme as submitted remains fundamentally unaltered from that originally proposed.
As the pre-application proposal sought to provide nursing care for the frail elderly as well as those living with dementia, the applicant was requested as part of any application to submit a statement setting out the need for such care in this location (particularly having regard to recently completed care facilities in Verwood and the surrounding area), and clarifying staffing/operational requirements including any staff accommodation and shift patterns in order to enable appraisal of the impacts of activity generated by the site.
At the pre-application stage officers were not able to support the proposal for the reasons set out.
Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the core land-use planning principles that should underpin decision taking. These principles include: - promoting the vitality of the main urban areas, - seeking to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. - contributing to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution, - encouraging the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), - actively managing patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focusing significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable, and - taking account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.
In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 36 states that all developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a travel plan.
Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 49) and the importance of good design is emphasised (para 56).
Decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive, will function well and add to the overall quality of the area by responding to local character and reflecting the identity of local surroundings (para 58). Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (para 64), or if it results in the loss of aged or veteran trees unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly.
The site is identified as being within the urban area of Verwood. The site is accessed from the B3081 Ringwood Road which is a County Distributor Road.
The site lies within 400m of the Verwood Heaths Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI forms part of the Dorset Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and is additionally part of the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Residential development on a site within 400m of the designated Heathland would normally result in an objection from Natural England as such development, in combination with other plans or projects, would result in increased pressure on the specific habitats and species which are characteristic of the Protected Heathland. However, as the proposal is for a nursing care home with residents requiring a considerable level of care and would not be ambulant or active enough to use the heathland for recreation, Natural England do not consider that the proposal would result in any pressure on the specific nature conservation interests of the SSSI.
Local Plan policy HODEV3 permits elderly persons' accommodation, rest homes, nursing homes and other similar communal establishments within urban areas where: a) it is not of such a scale as to create a building whose bulk or site coverage is damaging to the amenity of neighbouring residents or the character of the local area; and b) it will not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents through loss of light, privacy, or overlooking; and c) it will provide adequate external amenity space for its residents, away from vehicle parking or manoeuvring areas and main road frontages; and d) vehicle parking or manoeuvring areas do not cause unacceptable noise or disturbance to neighbouring residents or loss of amenity by their proximity to ground floor windows either of the development or of addjoining properties.
Local Plan policies HODEV1, HODEV3, DES8, DES9, TRANS10 are also relevant to the consideration of this proposal:
The Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State in March 2013 and the Vision for Christchurch and East Dorset states inter alia that "The challenges of supporting a significant elderly and retired population will be planned for through provision of appropriate housing, health and community facilities and services". Objective 5 of the Core Strategy seeks to deliver a suitable, affordable and sustainable range of housing to provide for local needs and will include housing capable of meeting people's needs at all stages of life.
Policy KS13 sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.
Policy KS11 states that development will be permitted where mitigation is provided against the negative transport impacts which may arise from the development and this shall be achieved through the implementation of measures identified within a submitted transport assessment including the provision of travel plans. Policy KS12 requires adequate vehicle and cycle parking to serve the needs of the proposed development.
Policies ME4 and ME5 require the achievement of Sustainable development standards and renewable energy provision.
Policy HE2 reiterates the requirements set out in Local Plan policy DES8 that seek to ensure that proposals are compatible with their surroundings and will harmonise with the townscape and general character of the areas in which they are set, and Policy HE3 stipulates that development will need to protect and enhance the landscape character of the area.
Policy LN1 requires all new housing to be built to meet minimum living space standards for both internal and external areas and Policy LN2 states that the design and layout of new housing development should maximise the density of development to a level which is acceptable for the locality.
Policy LN3 sets out the parameters for the provision of affordable housing and stipulates that conditions or legal obligations will be used to ensure that affordable housing is secured for those in housing need and prioritised for those with a local connection.
Policy LN7 specifically relates to Housing and accommodation proposals for vulnerable people and with regard to Category C2 health and care related development proposals and states that such proposals would not be subject to policy LN3 but will be required to demonstrate that any impacts upon, or risks to, the strategic aims and objectives of Dorset County Council and NHS Dorset health and social care services have been taken into account and mitigated against. The policy states that all other residential proposals for older and vulnerable people including extra-care accommodation, must meet the requirements of policy LN3 and the policy goes on to stipulate that subject to viability such requirements would be met through a commuted sum contribution but where on site provision is made for affordable housing the details of any such proposals and associated delivery mechanisms will require the prior approval of both the Council and Dorset County Council.
Planning issues:
There is no objection in principle to the redevelopment of a brownfield site in the urban area for a care home. The main issues in the consideration of this application are: o Impact of the proposed building on the character of the area; o Impact on protected trees; o Impact on the amenity of the occupiers of nearby properties; o Nature Conservation issues. o Need for development o Adequacy of Parking and impact on Highway safety
Impact on the character of the area:
The proposed nursing home building is set back from its main Ringwood Road frontage by approximately 45m. To the front of the building are 25 car parking spaces, an ambulance bay and 5 covered bike stands with some peripheral landscaping.
The footprint of the nursing home is shaped in the form of an H, comprising of two horizontal sections running broadly w-e, the first facing towards Ringwood Road, the
second fronting Crescent Road with a narrower indented linear element (running ne- sw) linking the two.
Accommodation within the building is arranged principally on 2 floors, with the northernmost horizontal section (fronting Ringwood Road) housing accommodation within its roofspace. This additional floor accommodates a staff room, staff changing rooms, a plant room, stores, laundry, kitchens and toilets.
The remaining accommodation is arranged on 2 floors with the ground floor accommodation comprising 34 en-suite bedrooms 2 lounge areas, 2 dining rooms, assisted bathrooms, shower rooms and wc's, sluice rooms, a nurses station, medical and other stores as well as a manager's office, admin. Office, entrance lobby and reception/seating area.
On the first floor a further 34 bedrooms with en-suite are proposed together with 2 lounge areas, 2 dining rooms, assisted bathroom facilities, sluice rooms and stores as well as a hair salon, private dining room, activity room and nurses station. The first floor also has an external terrace area serving one of the residents lounges which faces north towards Ringwood Road.
The facades of the building are shown to be a mixture of render stone and brick with a grey tiled roof. The main building range varies in height between 8.5m and 9.4m (10m to chimney height), with a general eaves height of 5.5m. The width of the building facing Ringwood Road is in the region of 40m w-e with its depth from front to back some 62m (nw-se).
The rearmost block fronting Crescent road also measures in the region of 40m at its widest point, although the form is partially staggered to reflect the shape of the site. At its closest point the building extends to within 4m of the boundary with number 4 Heathlands close to the nw, 8m from the rear garden boundary to number 72 Ringwood Road to the nw, 5m from the side boundary to number 19 Crescent Road to the east and 5.6m to the boundary with no.21a Newtown Road.
The different elements of the building each have a depth of approximately 15m and as a consequence of seeking to minimise the overall height of building the roof form comprises false low pitched roofs surrounding central flat roofed areas.
The proposed building would have a substantial physical presence by virtue of its design, bulk scale and mass. The built form would not appear domestic in character and in combination with the extent of hardsurfacing and the limited space for soft landscaping would result in the built form dominating the plot to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.
For these reasons the application is recommended for refusal.
Impact on protected trees.
The proposed development would result in the loss of a preserved oak tree (T12) which makes a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the area. The scale of building and proximity to the remaining trees on and adjacent to the site will
change the visual perspective of the trees to the detriment of the setting and wider visual amenity of the area.
The applicants have alluded to issues with regard to the health of T12, but the Council's arboriculturalist has concluded that Preserved Tree T12 is healthy and contributes significantly to the amenity of the area and he considers that the limited landscaping opportunities afforded by the proposal would not provide adequate recompense for the loss of such a tree.
The applicants further submit the scheme is only viable if it provides a minimum of 64 bedrooms and they have advised that in order to address the arboriculturalist's concern about the loss of an Oak Tree the scheme would have to be reduced from 64 beds to 48 beds and this would not be a viable proposal for the site. The applicant therefore concludes that it would only be possible to develop this site for a 64 bed care home if T12 is removed.
The applicants were made aware of the Council's concerns regarding the loss of trees at the preapplication stage. Whilst the viability argument in respect of this particular scheme is noted, members will be aware of a recent consent for a 40 bed care home and a dwelling to provide staff accommodation together with a domicillary care unit on a 0.46ha site Rear of Bethel Chapel And 36-44 Ringwood Road in August 2009 (09/0435/FUL) which appears to be operating successfully with a lesser number of units than that proposed in the current application and with the retention of a Protected tree.
Notwithstanding the applicant's viability argument for such a large care home at 76 Ringwood Road there are other issues with regard to the acceptability of the current proposal under consideration and in combination these issues are considered to outweigh any justification for the loss of such a significant amenity tree even if its loss could be justified in terms of an overriding public interest to secure the facilities provided by the care home.
The loss of tree T12 is therefore a reason for refusal of this application.
Impact on the amenity of the occupiers of nearby properties.
The applicant submits that the H shape reduces the bulk of the built form and ensures that it won't be overbearing to neighbours. However, the proposed building would have a substantial physical presence by virtue of its bulk, scale and mass. The built form would not appear domestic in character and given its scale, proximity and orientation relative to the adjacent dwellings (which are aligned at various angles and orientations to the proposed building) it would have an overbearing relationship to the adjacent dwellings. In particular the physical juxtaposition to no. 21a Newtown Road(7m), no.3 Heathlands Close (8m), no.19 Crescent Road (11m), no. 72 Ringwood Road (12m) and no.9 Crescent Road (16m)
The applicants have responded to officers concerns about the overlooking to neighbouring properties by referring to the provision of close boarded fencing along the western boundary and this is to be enhanced by hedging. It is also submitted that:
- the closest windows facing west are within the central part of the building and set back from the boundary. - the proposal would face the driveway and a blank gable wall of no.9 Crescent Road, the windows at no.19 Crescent Road would have an oblique relationship with the application site and there would be a minimum separation distance of 15.7m between windows. In addition the proposal includes the planting of semi-mature trees in this location. - at first floor level the parts of the building in closest proximity to the boundary accommodate ancillary rooms/staircases with no windows on the elevations facing neighbouring properties, the first floor windows that do serve bedrooms all have oblique relationships with neighbouring properties.
Notwithstanding the applicant's submission the proposal results in a significant number of first floor windows which serve habitable rooms including lounges and dining areas which provide the opportunity to overlook the adjacent residential properties. Although some of the first floor windows could be obscure glazed, the number and proximity of the first floor windows will result in a loss of privacy and/or perceived overlooking to the neighbouring properties (nos.9 and 19 Crescent Road, 21a Newtown Road, no.3 Heathland Close and no.72 Ringwood Road) to the detriment of the amenity of the occupiers of those properties.
The impact on the amenity of the occupiers of nearby dwellings is therefore considered to be unacceptable and the proposal does not therefore comply with Policies DES2 and DES8 of the EDLP. The application is recommended for refusal on this basis.
Noise and Disturbance The agent advises that the care home would employ 64 FTE staff, the site is staffed 24 hours a day with shift changeovers taking place at 2pm and 8pm, there would be a maximum of 24 staff on site at any one time. However, given the existing use of the site and the arrangement of parking and manouevring areas with landscaping proposals it is not considered that the vehicular use would result in significant disturbance to the amenities of the adjacent dwellings. The applicants have provided further clarification with regard to proposals for ventilation equipment and it is considered likely that subject to appropriate details and conditions the impact of such equipment on adjacent properties could be appropriately managed to prevent a significant detrimental impact on those properties.
Nature Conservation Issues. The site is within 400m of Internationally Protected Heathland. However the development is to provide a nursing care home falling within Use Class C2, for the infirm and those who are not ambulant and therefore will not be using the heathland for recreation use. This development will not result in any increased pressure on the nature conservation interests of the heathland. No staff accommodation is proposed and the impact on this heathland is therefore considered acceptable and no objection has been raised by Natural England in this regard.
Need for development
The Adult and Community Services Section of the County Council has raised concerns about the application (additional pressure on resources from in migration) and asked for clarification from the applicant as to where the potential residents will come from.They have requested that: - 25% of the places are made available to the County Council and Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group. - information be provided on local needs analysis and socio-economic and geographical groups that the provision is aimed at. - details of anticipated levels of fees are provided.
In response the applicant has advised that the proposed care home will provide specialist care for high dependency occupants suffering from dementia, for which support within their own home is no longer sufficient. The appraisal carried out by the specialist healthcare consultants confirmed that here is a significant shortfall in the local catchment for elderly residential beds confirming that there is a local need for the proposed care home. Further evidence is provided to support this in a Local Needs Analysis and the applicant disputes that the planning system should be used to discourage the in-migration of elderly people into Dorset.
The County Council have not responded to consultation on this additional submission and notwithstanding their concerns there is currently no Policy base for a refusal of this application on the basis of their representation (this concern did not result in a refusal of the care home on Land Rear of Bethel Chapel and 36-44 Ringwood Road). Through the emerging Core Strategy and its local need policies, the Council is seeking to ensure that all future housing and accommodation proposals serve local needs. In addition the Core Strategy includes explicit wording to ensure that any risks created by C2 Care Homes - that could result in conflicts with the wider strategic aims of Dorset County Council or NHS Dorset and the services they provide - have been mitigated against.
The Council's Housing Development and Enabling Manager considers that the applicant has provided evidence demonstrating that the scheme is being provided in response to locally driven need and demand and they have responded to the concerns of DCC.
It is regrettable that DCC have not responded to their offer, but as and when the Core Strategy is adopted, the LPA will take a more proactive stance to ensure that applicants address these requirements from the first pre-application dialogues about concepts (seeking input from both DCC and NHS Dorset at that time). The LPA will then do our best to ensure that any offers made to either of these bodies are optimised and we will take a more rigorous approach to assessing Local Need evidence.
If any subsequent comment is received from DCC, the comments will be reported verbally to Committee.
Although Policy LN7 of the emerging Core Strategy looks to address the absence of a policy context, given the current status of the Core Strategy, the advice from the Council's Housing Development and Enabling Manager, and the absence of any
further comment from Dorset County Council it is therefore considered that it would not be possible to justify pursuing this requirement in response to this current application and this issue does not constitute a reason for refusal.
Highway Issues
Subject to conditions no objection has been raised to this proposal by the Highway Authority but with regard to the need for any contribution to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the transport network, the Highway officer has stated that "based on figures within the submitted TA a contribution figure of £10,500 would be appropriate". Although they have confirmed that they are prepared to make a contribution of £700 towards the Travel Plan monitoring fee by way of a Unilateral Undertaking, the applicants have requested further clarification/justification for the SEDTCS contribution request and the LPA is not yet in receipt of a completed Unilateral Undertaking to secure these contributions. Any further response from the Highways officer will be reported verbally to Committee, but the absence of a completed Unilateral undertaking constitues a reason for refusal of this application.
Conclusion
Although a nursing home is considered to be an acceptable use for this site, the building is not in keeping with the bulk, scale and mass of other buildings along Ringwood Road and on the surrounding sites. The proposed building and its associated hardstanding areas would not allow for any significant landscaping around the site and it would therefore appear incongruous in the streetscene and harmful to the character of the area.
The impact of the care home on neighbouring dwellings is considered unacceptable in terms of its overbearing relationship and impact on privacy to those adjacent dwellings.
The Protected trees on the site and within the adjacent land, are a severe constraint on the layout of this development. These trees are important to the visual amenities of the area and their long term health and retention is paramount. The proposal would result in the loss of a preserved Oak tree which provides significant amenity value to the locality and the proposal would jeopardise the long term well being of preserved trees.
Subject to appropriate conditions no highway objection is raised to the proposal, but the absence of a completed Unilateral Undertaking to secure a contribution to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the transport network, and to cover the cost of administering and monitoring the Travel Plan constitutes a reason for refusal. Due to the level of care required and the relative incapacity of the residents Natural England do not object to the care home and the proposal would not be required to mitigate any impact on the Dorset heathland.
The proposed development would appear incongruous and detrimental to the character of the area, and it would be harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties. The proposal does not therefore comply with Policies DES5,
DES7, DES8, and HODEV3 of the East Dorset Local Plan and paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and it is recommended for refusal.
Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-
Reasons:-
1 The new building would appear unsympathetic and inappropriate in terms of architectural style, scale and bulk, resulting in a cramped appearance in relation to the plot and an incongruous building in the street scene. The new hardstanding to the front of the building would be visually prominent in the streetscene and in combination with the loss of a significant oak tree and limited landscaping opportunities on the remaining site area this would detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies DES8 and HODEV3 of the East Dorset Local Plan and paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2 The proposed building, by virtue of its bulk, scale, mass and design, would have an overbearing relationship to adjacent residential properties, and given the disposition of first floor windows would result in overlooking/perceived overlooking and loss of privacy to those residential properties to the detriment of the amenity of the occupiers of those properties contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
3 Located within and adjacent to the application site are protected Oaks that are subject of the East Dorset District Council, Newtown Road No.1 and Crescent Road No.21, Verwood, Tree Preservation Orders. These trees make a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the locality and they are clearly visible from many of the surrounding properties and roads. Of particular importance is Oak (T12), which it is proposed to remove in order for the care home to be constructed. This Oak is a significant specimen that has been given an 'A1' categorisation in accordance with BS5837:2012 and it is therefore a material constraint within this proposal. The removal of this Oak would have a significant adverse impact on visual amenities of the locality and the Council are of the opinion the proposed mitigation planting would not sufficiently replace the amenity lost as a result of this Oak being removed. The Council are therefore of the opinion that this proposal is contrary to Policies DES5 and DES7 of the East Dorset Local Plan and policy HE3 of the emerging Core Strategy.
4 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that planning permission should be refused if it results in the loss of aged or veteran trees, unless the need for and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. The proposal would result in the loss of an aged tree which makes a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the locality. The Council are of the view that considerable space is available within the application site to construct a care home and retain this prominent aged Oak. Inadequate justification has
been provided by the applicant in terms of the need for and benefits of the development to justify the loss of such an important tree and therefore the Council considers that the benefits of the current development do not clearly outweigh the tree's loss and the proposal would be contrary to Paragraph 118 of the NPPF.
5 Almost all development in the South East Dorset area, however small, will impact on transport networks and services. On 16 April 2012 the local planning authority adopted the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2, a Supplementary Planning Document. This requires development in the South East Dorset area to make a proportionate financial contribution towards the implementation of schemes designed to alleviate problems caused by the cumulative and cross-border impacts of new developments on transport networks and services and thus facilitates the sustainable implementation of that development. No contribution has been made by the applicant and no commitment to a contribution has been secured through a Planning Obligation. Nor has any evidence been submitted to demonstrate that the development would not exacerbate transport problems in South East Dorset. The development is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, CIL Regulation 122, Policy Trans14 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 and Policy KS11 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy
Informatives:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre- application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.
In arriving at a decision to REFUSE the application the applicant and council have worked together to minimise the reasons for refusal.
2 The decision to refuse planning permission was based on the following submitted plans: drawing nos. AL (51) 001 RevA; AL(51)001 RevB; AL(51)002 RevA; AL(51) 010; AL(11)020 RevA; AL(11)021 RevA; AL(11)022 RevA; AL(11)024 RevA; AL(13)100 RevA; AL(13)101 Rev A; .
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 HODEV1 HODEV3 DES9 TRAN10 DES5 DES7
Item Number: 3. Ref: 3/13/0504/HOU
Proposal: Raise Roof to Create Additional Accommodation to Include Dormer Windows and Rooflights, Single Storey Side Extension (Demolish Existing Conservatory), as amended by plans rec'd 6/8/13 to lower the roof pitch, crop gables and remove laundry. Site Address: 101 Sandy Lane, St Ives, Ringwood, for Mr And Mrs S Kavanagh Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp : 7 July 2013 Advert expired: Nbr -Nfn expired: 14 October 2013
St Leonards And St Ives Taking into account the amended plans and Parish Council Comments: comments of local residents, there still appears to be a possible overlooking issue which is of concern.
EDDC Tree Section Having assessed the latest plans, whilst I am still of the opinion that the tree: building relationship remains slightly incongruous, further alterations have been made to its design to lessen the impact and future pressure that would be placed on the adjacent protected trees.
I therefore no longer have any arboricultural objections and should you be minded to approve this application, please include the following condition:
Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development start on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), which is to be in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS and TPP. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be confirmed at a pre-commencement meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.
Officers Report:
This application is brought before Committee at the request of Cllr Mrs A Warman, as her view is contrary to the officer's recommendation, and also due to the number of representations received.
The objections and concerns of both the Cllr and neighbours, relate to the excessive bulk, potential for overlooking, concerns of the character of a two storey dwelling in this location, loss of light and amenity at 28 St Ives End Lane and potential for noise and disruption. Nine letters of Objection have been received to this effect, and two letters of Support.
101 Sandy Lane is a detached bungalow located in the St Ives urban area, and occupies a corner plot at the junction of Sandy Lane and St Ives End Lane. The property is set at a higher level than the pavement and highway to the west, and there are several trees present, with 3 protected pine trees along the front boundary with St Ives End Lane. There is a detached double garage to the south eastern corner of the plot.
Site History:
Two previous applications for single storey extensions to the front and sides of the existing property were refused in February 2011 (3/10/1176) and May 2011 (3/11/0352). The reason for refusal for each application was due to the unacceptable loss of tree roots, the detrimental impact on the protected trees health and amenity and the proposals incompatibility with the mature trees.
Policy Considerations:
Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan (EDLP) and Policy HE2 of the Emerging Core Strategy, along with paragraphs 58 - 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are relevant to the consideration of this application.
The main issues are the impact on the residential amenities of the adjacent properties, the impact of the proposal on the character and visual amenities of the area, and also the impact on protected trees.
The Proposal:
This application involves the raising of the roof in order to create first floor accommodation comprising two additional bedrooms and en-suites, and also includes new dormer windows to the principal elevation and rooflights to the rear.
The original proposal, prior to amendments, included raising the roof by 2.15m, to a total height of 6.7m, to provide for the proposed first floor accommodation, and the installation of 2 velux and 3 dormer windows to the front of the property. It also included a first floor Juliette balcony proposed for the west elevation, with further rooflights and a 6m high dormer to the rear to provide for the staircase.
An extension to the (west) side and rear was also proposed to replace the existing conservatory and provide a new rear laundry area. This would have resulted in a
dwelling which is 13.8m in length, with a small rear extension which extends 2.5m to the rear and measures 2.7m wide. This extension would have come within 1.7m of the boundary with No 28 St Ives End Lane, and was 7m from the nearest protected tree. This proposed laundry extension to the rear was removed in the amended plans.
The last set of amended plans, received 4th Sept, has reduced the ridge height down to 6m with partially cropped gable ends. The rear velux windows have been raised to prevent overlooking, in response to neighbour concerns, and the rear laundry extension has been removed in order to overcome arboricultural issues.
The Impact on Neighbours:
The front elevation features three dormer windows which face north west; these would not result in overlooking as they directly face front gardens at a distance of approx. 25m.
The eastern (side) elevation has only first floor windows which serve the third bedroom; these face the side of the property at 99 Sandy Lane. The occupant has raised concern over the potential for overlooking from these secondary windows, and the applicant would prefer not to obscure glaze this window. However this would not be a robust reason for refusal, as no. 99 is a wider property with no first floor windows in the side elevation, the angle at which the rear garden would be visible from the proposed windows is not direct, and the presence of the existing double garage between the properties and a distance of 10.5m separates the two dwellings.
The western (side) elevation features ground floor folding patio doors which are 9.6m in width, and a first floor Juliette balcony. Objections have been received regarding these proposals and the resultant overlooking, from the occupants of 27 and 25 St Ives End Lane in particular, whose properties lie approx. 30m to the west and south west of the application site, however, at these distances it cannot be argued that neighbouring amenity will be harmed as a result of the proposal.
The rear elevation features a prominent central dormer to accommodate the staircase; the vertical windows could facilitate overlooking into the conservatory, patio, and rear garden of 28 St Ives End Lane, and obscure glazing would be conditioned here to prevent this. The velux windows in this elevation have also be raised in the amended plans, due to overlooking concerns, and these are now proposed to be a minimum of 1.7m above floor level.
The height and bulk of the original proposal was of concern due to the proximity to the dwelling at No. 28, this has been addressed by the amended plans where the proposed height has been lowered from 6.7m down to 6m, which is 1.8m higher than the existing dwelling. The roof is pitched away from the neighbour to the rear and the amended cropped gable ends have ameliorated the impact of the bulk of the proposal on the rear neighbours at 28 St Ives End Lane. The removal of the laundry extension to the rear has also lessened the impact of the proposal on both the protected trees and neighbours by bringing the proposal further away from the rear (south) boundary of the site.
On balance, it is considered that these amendments reduce the bulk and mass of the original proposal, and have mitigated against the potential detrimental harm to the amenity of the occupants at 28 St Ives End Lane.
Impact on the Streetscene:
The proposal will inevitably result in an increased height and bulk in the streetscene, though the extent to this has been mitigated by the amendments. Although St Ives End Lane is primarily composed of detached bungalows, the surrounding properties along Sandy Lane are a mixture of bungalows and some large two storey detached properties, including numbers 97, 104 and 102 Sandy Lane, and so the principle of raising the roof in this location, would therefore be considered appropriate. The site occupies a landmark corner site, at the entrance to St Ives End Lane, and it is considered that a more prominent form of development is acceptable in this location.
Impact on Protected Trees:
Having assessed the latest plans, the Arboricultural Officer considers that the tree: building relationship remains slightly incongruous, further amendments have been made to lessen the impact and future pressure that would be placed on the adjacent protected trees.
However, the Officer has no arboricultural objections subject to a condition for the requirement of an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the amended scheme for the proposed raising of the roof and side extension is considered appropriate to the corner plot location. The principle for this type of development is already established in this location, and the amendments to the proposal have mitigated against the negative impacts on the protected trees and neighbouring amenity to such a degree that it would be difficult to refuse the application on this basis.
It is therefore considered to be in accordance with the East Dorset Local Plan policy DES8, HE2 of the Emerging Core Strategy and NPPF paragraphs 56, 58, 60 and 64.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
13.07.1 - Existing Plans and Elevations 13.07.2.B - Proposed Plans and Elevations 13.07.3 - Existing Site Layout Plan 13.07.4.A - Proposed Site Layout Plan 13.07.5 - Site Plans
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.
4 Prior to commencement of the proposal hereby permitted, one Schwegler 2FDFP Bat Box, shall be installed at high level in the large Scots Pine tree located in front of the existing garage, by the entrance gate, as required in Section C of the Bat Mitigation Plan. unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of a protected species.
5 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the dormer window(s) on the south (rear) elevation which serve the stairwell, shall be glazed with obscure glass. The velux windows on the south (rear) elevation, hereby permitted shall be hung no less than 1.7m above floor level, in such a way as to prevent 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.
6 Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development start on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), which is to be in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS and TPP. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be confirmed at a pre-commencement meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.
Reason: To ensure that protected trees are not adversely affected as a result of development.
Informatives:
1 In the determination of this application, the policies and implications of the National Planning Policy Framework have been taken into consideration.
2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; o offering a pre-application advice service, and o as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application:
o the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, o The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8
Item Number: 4. Ref: 3/13/0505/HOU
Proposal: Single Storey Side and Rear Extension With New Roof to Entire Property to Include 3 Dormer Windows at Front and 3 Velux windows at Rear as amended by plans received 24th Jun 2013 & 23rd Sept 2013 & 25th Sept. Site Address: 10 Belle Vue Grove, West Moors, Ferndown, for Mr P Akester
Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Special Character Area Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp : 24 July 2013 Advert expired: Nbr -Nfn expired: 14 October 2013
West Moors Parish No objection Council Comments:
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.
West Moors Parish Council No objection
Officers Report:
This application is brought to Committee for determination as there are five or more letters of objection, which are at variance with the officer's recommendation for approval.
Site Description
No. 10 is a detached 4.5m high bungalow located on a triangular shaped plot at the end of Belle Vue Grove, a residential cul de sac within the defined urban area of West Moors. There is a detached garage with a ridged roof to the side of the bungalow. The front boundary is marked by mature hedging and the boundaries of the rear garden (which tapers to a point at its northern most part) are also marked by mature hedging.
Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan applies to the consideration of this application.
Proposal
This application seeks to extend the property to the side (over an existing single storey side extension) and rear and add first floor accommodation in a new raised gabled roof. The proposed roof would have three dormers in the front elevation and velux windows in the rear roof slope.
The ridge height of the property would be increased from 4.5m to 5.6m.
Considerations
The main issues in the consideration of this application are the visual amenities of the area, the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and nature conservation.
Visual Amenities
The predominant characteristic of the cul de sac is of bungalows with pyramidal roof forms. The bungalow at number 10 is a relatively secluded site located at the end of the cul de sac and when viewed from the south eastern part of the Grove would be viewed with a backdrop of the larger properties in Glenwood Road. Given this setting the proposal to increase the ridge height by 1.1m is not considered likely to be visually dominant in the streetscene, or detract from the visual informality of the variety of bungalows in the Grove. Although the dwelling is visible from the properties fronting Glenwood Road they collectively screen the site from views to the west, and given the distance and intervening vegetation here views of the site from the north are limited. The juxtaposition of the gabled end elevation and the additional roof height relative to no.8 will be visible in immediate views from the front of the two properties, however given the limited visual prominence of the dwelling together with existing boundary vegetation, it is not considered that this relationship would be of such harm to the character of the area to justify a refusal of the application. The proposal is therefore not considered detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and it would accord with Policy DES8 of the EDLP.
Amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings
The application, proposes to extend one existing dwelling by approximately 2.5m to the rear bringing the dwelling to within approximately 2m of the boundary with number 54 Glenwood Road. The additional height and depth of the building would be visible from the rear of the properties in Glenwood Road, (52, 54, 56) the enlarged building is a sufficient distance (in excess of 12m) away from the rear elevations of those properties such that it would not give rise to any significant or loss of light to those dwellings. No first floor windows are proposed in the gabled elevations and the roof lights in the rear roof slope would have a cill height of approx. 1.6m. Given this height and their oblique angle relative to the adjacent properties it is considered that the roof lights would not result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings. A condition is however recommended to remove Permitted Development rights for any further windows in the rear roof slope of the enlarged dwelling in order to retain control over this. The extensions would have an impact on the adjacent dwelling at no.8, but taking into account that the enlarged dwelling would not project significantly beyond the rear elevation of no.8 it is considered that the proposed development will not have a materially detrimental effect on the amenities of the occupiers of that dwelling and it therefore complies with Policy DES8 of the EDLP.
Highways
The proposal does not give rise to any highway issues.
Trees
No arboricultural objections are raised.
Nature Conservation
The development proposed involves replacing the roof, but the application is accompanied by a negative Bat check Certificate and therefore no nature conservation issues are raised by this proposed development.
Conclusion
The extensions proposed under this application will not be materially detrimental to the visual amenities of the area or the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. It accords with Policy DES8 of the EDLP and is recommended for approval.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan Ref A1 AKESTER-1241366-001;.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.
4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration shall be installed in the rear roof slope without express planning permission.
Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining property.
Informatives:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.
In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application the applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8
Item Number: 5. Ref: 3/13/0571/FUL
Proposal: Erect a new single storey dwelling house with integral garage
Site Address: 1 Bushmead Drive, Ashley Heath, Ringwood, for Mr Daniel Balson
Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp : 8 August 2013 Advert expired: Nbr -Nfn expired: 26 July 2013
St Leonards And St Ives Aware of the history of this site we feel that as a result Parish Council Comments: of recent development in adjacent roads this may be difficult to refuse. Provided the design is in keeping with adjacent properties and conditioned to remove permitted development rights we will not object.
Consultee Responses: County Highways No objection, subject to conditions Development Liaison Officer
Natural England Issues concerning designated heathland sites The application site lies in the vicinity (within 5 km and beyond 400m) of heathlands that are notified as SSSIs for the special interest of their heathland habitats and associated plant and animal species. The SSSIs are part of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland bird species and are also part of a Ramsar site on account of rare or vulnerable heathland wetlands and associated rare wetland species. They are additionally part of the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland and associated habitats and some individual species. The proximity of the European sites (SPA and SAC) raises considerations on the requirements of the Habitats Directive 1992 for these sites to be maintained or, where necessary, restored at a favourable conservation status (Article 3 (1)). Determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat and Species Regulations 20101, in particular Regulations 61 and 62; and legislative and policy considerations on the protection, conservation and enhancement of the interest features of the SSSI and Ramsar site. There is considerable documented information showing that urban development in the area around lowland heathland has an adverse effect on the
quality of heathland interest features underlying the designation of the European sites, Ramsar site and SSSIs. Key references can be found at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_west/ ourwork/heathlands/default.aspx
In our view the proposal is not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of the European sites. Owing to the proximity of the proposal to the European sites, Natural England is of the opinion that the additional residential development, in combination with other dwellings proposed near to the European sites, would be likely to have a significant effect on the heathland interest features of these sites in the context of Regulation 61. Before granting planning permission the competent authority should undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the development on the European sites in light of their conservation objectives. The conservation objectives are to maintain and, where not in favourable condition, to restore, the heathland and other habitat and species interest features. Whilst on its own the development may not adversely affect the integrity of the European sites, in combination with other dwellings proposed near to the European sites, the development without mitigation would be likely to contribute to a deterioration of the quality of lowland heathland and its interest features. The application proposal does not include mitigation that would avoid or reduce an adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites. It would be possible to mitigate the effects through the types of measures set out in the Dorset Heathlands SPD. The measures will be subject to monitoring and evaluation, and modification where necessary to ensure that as a whole they deliver effective mitigation across the European sites. On this basis Natural England considers that implementation of the SPD can allow the Competent Authorities in South East Dorset to conclude no adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites from the envisaged amount of housing development in the area between 400m and 5km from these sites in the period to the end of 20142. Natural England objects to this application proposal unless the applicant contributes to the mitigation set out in the SPD in accordance with the levels and procedures for this contribution. This advice on mitigation also applies in meeting legislative and policy considerations on the protection, conservation and enhancement of the heathland SSSIs and Ramsar site.
Issues concerning other designated sites This application is in close proximity to Moors River System SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.
Protected species If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the authority should request survey information from the applicant before determining the application. The Government has provided advice3 on BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system. Natural England Standing Advice is available on our website to help local planning authorities better understand the impact of this particular development on protected or BAP species should they be identified as an issue at particular developments. This also sets out when, following receipt of survey information, the authority should undertake further consultation with Natural England. Local wildlife sites If the proposal site could result in an impact on a Local Site4, Local Nature Reserve (LNR) or priority habitat the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application, ensuring that it does so in conformity with the wording of paragraph 168 of the National Planning Policy Framework. For further information on Local Sites, your authority should seek views from your ecologist, or the Local Sites designation body in your area. Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for
this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that 'Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity'. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that 'conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat'.
EDDC Tree Section Statement: The proposal is to erect a single dwelling house with integral garage. An arboricultural method statement and arboricultural impact assessment have now been submitted for the above site. This information has demonstrated how the protected trees will be afforded adequate protection during the development phase. Therefore, should you be minded to approve this application please ensure that the following condition is imposed. Condition: Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer and Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees. The protection of the trees shall be in accordance with the arboricultural report and drawing no. DS/6737313/AL, dated the 8th August 2013, compiled by Tree Call Consulting Ltd. The protective fencing shall be erected in accordance with BS5837:2012 fig.2 and it shall be positioned as shown on drawing no. DS/67313/AL. This is to be erected before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development. The protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered or excavations made without the written consent of the planning authority. This condition will not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be agreed at the pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA on completion of development.
Officers Report:
This application is brought before Committee due to the planning history of the site.
Site description
No.1 is a detached bungalow on the west side of Bushmead Drive. The site comprises a corner plot at the junction of the road with Lions Lane and the bungalow is located at the Lions Lane end of the plot. The existing bungalow faces Lions Lane and has a small private walled garden to the west side of the dwelling. On the north-west side of the site there is a group of trees mainly located within the curtilage of no.14 Lions Lane which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order.
Bushmead Drive is characterised by detached bungalows of varying designs on relatively large plots.
The proposal
The application seeks to sever an existing residential plot (approx.. 0.126ha) and construct a detached single storey 3 bedroom dwelling with integral garage. The application site is approximately 602m2 (21.5m wide and 28 deep) and the new bungalow would have a footprint of approximately 175m2. The host property has a footprint of 147m2 and would have a plot size of approximately 660m2 and there would be a gap between the two bungalows of approx..4m. The proposal would result in a development with a density of approx 16 dwellings pha.
Planning History
1981 An application (81/0224) to erect a dwelling was refused because it was considered the proposal would: - constitute over-development having regard to the density and character of nearby development. - be likely to encourage the sub-division of further curtilages which would progressively spoil the character and appearance of the area. - be contrary to the proposals of the St Leonards and St Ives Local Plan in that the density exceeds three dwellings to the acre. The ensuing appeal was dismissed in September 1981 with the Inspector expressing concern that the proposal would be a precedent for more development in Bushmead Drive where spare frontages are available. The Inspector drew a distinction between the character of the development in Lions Lane and Bushmead Drive and considered that the proposal would "look cramped and be overdevelopment when related to its neighbours at no.14 Lions Lane and no.3 Bushmead Drive . And all the other houses on both sides of this well planned and spacious residential road".
1991 An appeal against the refusal of application 90/0544 for the erection of a bungalow and detached garage was dismissed with the Inspector concluding that infill development in the area had taken place on sites that were not as small as the appeal site and decisions on those sites had been consistent with the Council's policies to protect the spacious and leafy character of the area. However, the proposed bungalow would be significantly smaller than those in the immediate area and would be closer to both boundaries than is generally the case in the
neighbourhood, it was therefore concluded that it would appear cramped on the site and cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.
2002 An appeal against the refusal of application 01/0877 for the erection of a bungalow and integral garage was dismissed in April with the Inspector concluding that the plot depth and frontage of 29m and 23m resulted in a plot significantly smaller than any other house plot in the vicinity, and the removal of most of its garden would leave 1 Bushmead Drive with a similarly small plot. Although the Inspector stated that it would be feasible to accommodate a bungalow on the appeal site he considered that the relatively narrow building would look out of place and would adversely affect the existing streetscene.
2006 An application to erect a bungalow and garage and construct a vehicular access was refused in October (06/0943). An appeal was subsequently dismissed in July 2007. The Inspector made reference to an earlier appeal decision on the site (see above) and notwithstanding that her attention had been drawn to sub divided plots in Lions Lane she considered that "the two roads are not directly comparable, Bushmeads Drive having a distinctly different, more spacious and landscaped character." The Inspector concluded that the removal of the appellant's garage would allow a wider gap to that part of the site but "this would not materially affect the impact which the proposed dwelling would have on the special character of Bushmead Drive".
Considerations
The site is within the defined urban area of St Leonards and St Ives. Policies HODEV1, HODEV2 and DES8 of the EDLP apply to the consideration of this application. These policies require careful consideration of the proposal's relationship to and impact upon the character of the area, trees, amenities of adjacent properties and highway safety. Consideration needs to be given to whether there have been any changes to the site and policy context and whether the characteristics of the current proposal differ sufficiently from the previously refused schemes to warrant an approval of this application.
Policy context
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides advice on how Local Planning Authorities should consider planning applications. Paragraphs 7, 9-14, 17, 49, 53, 60, 61, 63-66 are of relevance to the consideration of this application. The general thrust of these paragraphs is that housing applications should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness and permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving character and quality of an area and the way it functions. The approach in the NPPF reaffirms the approach to the consideration of development proposals in the urban area that the Council has consistently taken with regard to the assessment of proposals with respect to their context and appropriateness to the character of the area.
Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan requires developments in towns to "...harmonise with the townscape and general character of the areas in which they are set...", and Policy HODEV1 states: "The development or the redevelopment of land for housing will be permitted on sites within the existing urban areas ..... provided that its location and form are appropriate to the physical and visual character of the settlement." Policy HODEV2 permits new housing where the proposals satisfy a number of criteria including the respect for and enhancement of local character.
Core Strategy
Christchurch and East Dorset's joint Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State in March 2013. The Core Strategy documents consist of the Pre-Submission document dated April 2012 and the Schedule of Proposed Changes to the Pre- Submission document dated November 2012. An Examination in Public commenced on 10th September 2013 and it is anticipated that an Inspector's Report will be provided in the Autumn with adoption possible in the early part of 2014. The Core Strategy proposes to save EDLP policy HODEV2 and replace EDLP policies DES8, NCON4, HODEV1 and TRANS14 (It is proposed that a further set of more detailed policies will follow in a separate document forming part 2 of the Local Plan).
Policy HE2 reiterates the requirements (eleven criteria) set out in Local Plan policy DES8 (which it replaces) that seek to ensure that proposals are compatible with their surroundings and will harmonise with the townscape and general character of the areas in which they are set. Policy LN1 requires all new housing to be built to meet minimum living space standards for both internal and external areas. Policy LN2 sets the parameters for dealing with the design, layout and density of new housing development and this policy would replace Local Plan policy HODEV1. Policy LN2 states that a minimum density of net 30dph will be encouraged, unless this would conflict with the local character and distinctiveness of an area where a lower density is more appropriate.
Impact on character of area
Bushmead Drive and the surrounding area is characterised by bungalows in generally large plots with space around the properties thereby contributing to a pleasant suburban environment. There is a distinct change in character between Bushmead Drive and Lions Lane and consideration of the application therefore focuses on its appropriateness in the context of its setting within the streetscene of Bushmead Drive.
The applicant submits that the site is incongruous in the street as it reads as an empty plot between nos.1 and 3 and recent developments have reduced building separation distances giving the street a less open character than when the previous application was considered. The applicant principally refers to how replacement dwellings and extensions to existing dwellings have changed the physical relationship of buildings to their plots in Bushmead Drive.
In vicinity of the site approval has been given for replacement bungalows at nos.6,9 and 10 Bushmead Drive and a bungalow and garage has been erected at no.2a (88/0863). Two appeals were allowed for three dwellings on the site of no.36 - the most recent being in May 2007.
It is acknowledged that the character of Bushmead Drive has evolved since the last appeal at no. 1 but it is not considered that these developments have significantly changed the character of the street when compared to the situation when the last appeal relating to no.1 was determined in 2007. The plots in the road are generally in excess of 30m wide - although one plot across the road from the site (no.2a) has a width of 26m. The proposal would result in similar plot widths.
The proposed dwelling would be visually evident and appear incongruous because of the bulk and scale of building on an unusually small plot. In combination with the diminished plot size remaining to the host property this development proposal would result in the same concerns previously expressed by the Council in connection with a series of similar applications on the site (see history). These concerns related to the impact on the character of the area and were supported on each occasion by the Planning Inspectorate
Notwithstanding the evolution in the character of the street, applications for additional dwellings are still being refused where they are considered to be harmful to the character of the area or give rise to other material planning concerns. For example an application to demolish a bungalow and erect 2 replacement bungalows at no.1 Norris Close was refused in 2001, and an application to sever the plot at no.37 Bushmead Drive was refused in October 2013 (13/0707/OUT).
There have been no significant changes to the circumstances of the site since the previous application was determined, and the relationship of the proposed and existing dwellings to their plots would be uncharacteristic of the area and remain of concern.
However, the character of surrounding streets has evolved with recent consents for infill developments granted by the LPA and also on appeal by the Inspectorate, and officers have therefore carried out an assessment of comparable developments on corner plots which should be taken into account as part of the assessment of this proposal.
Recent planning decisions on corner plots in vicinity of the site
2 Lions Lane: A 3 bed bungalow was allowed on appeal in February 2013 (12/0565) The site is a 0.15ha L shaped corner plot at the junction of Lions Lane and Woolsbridge Rd. The proposal would result in a density of approx. 14 dwellings to the hectare and the Inspector concluded that the plot would be within the range of sizes of nearby plots and would not be unusual in size. PD for extensions and additional curtilage buildings was removed by condition because of the limited size of the rear garden.
66 Braeside Road: An application to demolish the existing bungalow and replace with two 1.5 storey bungalows on a 0.103 ha site was allowed on appeal in January 2013 (12/0257). The proposal would result in a density of approx.. 20 dwellings to the hectare. Notwithstanding that the LPA considered that the dwellings would appear cramped (Braeside Road had a more spacious character than Lions Lane), the Inspector concluded that it would be viewed in context of the new development in Lions Lane and the proposal compared favourably with the plot ratios in Lions Lane and Braeside Road. The 3m separation between the new dwellings also compared favourably with the existing dwellings.
Adj 27 Lions Lane: An appeal was allowed in June 2008 (07/1383) and in April 2010 the LPA approved an application to sever the 0.13ha site and erect a detached dwelling. The proposal would result in a density of approx. 15 dwellings to the hectare.
76 Woolsbridge Road (0.16ha site on corner with Gainsborough Road): In January 2013 the LPA approved a plot severance and new dwelling with a resultant density of 12.5 dwellings per hectare (12/0937)
The above cases, including three appeal decisions since 2007, indicate that the character of the area, particularly on corner plots, has altered to some extent since the last appeal decision on no.1 Bushmead Drive. The above consented schemes raise the same issues and have similar characteristics to the current application proposal. Having regard to these recent cases and the changing character of Bushmead Drive resulting from the replacement and extended dwellings it is not considered that the LPA could successfully sustain a refusal of the current application on appeal.
Trees
Subject to a condition to secure tree protection during construction the arboricultural officer raises no objection to the proposal.
Amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings
The proposal would not introduce first floor windows and the existing and proposed boundary treatment is considered adequate to ensure that mutual privacy concerns are addressed. Such fencing could be conditioned along the new boundary between the existing and proposed dwelling.
The proposal would not result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to adjacent properties and the new dwelling would not significantly impact on the amenities of adjacent properties.
Given the limited amenity space and extent of enlargement that could occur under recent changes to the General Permitted Development Order, GPDO, if the proposal were to be recommended for approval it is considered expedient to protect the amenities of existing and proposed properties, and to protect trees, by adding a condition to remove permitted development rights for extensions.
Parking and Highway safety
No highway objection is raised subject to conditions to secure parking and access provision, closure of existing access and compliance with specifications for dropped kerbs.
Other matters
A completed and signed unilateral undertaking was submitted with the application and this addresses the requirements of the heathland mitigation policy and the County Council's transportation levy.
Conclusion
It is concluded that the proposal would have an acceptable relationship to trees, neighbouring properties and would not give rise to any concerns with regard to highway safety. Given the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF, and following an analysis of recent consents on similar corner plots in vicinity of the site, it is considered that notwithstanding the appeal history on the site, it is unlikely that a refusal of this proposal would be supported on appeal. The 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.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 4831-PL-001 RevB; 4831-PL-002 Rev F; 4831-PL-003 RevB; 4831-PL-004 RevA; 4831-PL-005.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer and Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the trees. The protection of the trees shall be in accordance with the arboricultural report and drawing no. DS/6737313/AL, dated the 8th August 2013, compiled by Tree Call Consulting Ltd. The protective fencing shall be erected in accordance with BS5837:2012 fig.2 and it shall be positioned as shown on drawing no. DS/67313/AL. This is to be erected before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the
site for the purposes of development. The protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered or excavations made without the written consent of the planning authority. This condition will not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be agreed at the pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA on completion of development.
Reason: In order to protect trees on and adjacent to the site.
4 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the parking shown on Drawing Number 4831-PL-001B has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
5 Before the development is commenced the proposed access crossing from the nearside edge of the carriageway to the boundary of the highway shall be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no outbuildings or extensions to the dwelling (including dormers and roof alterations) shall be constructed without express planning permission first being obtained.
Reason: Any enlargement of the approved house in accordance with Classes A and B or erection of outbuildings in accordance with Class E could significantly impact upon the character and openness of the site, the balance of private space provision, and may be detrimental to the health and well being of protected trees on and adjacent to the site. Such consequences would be contrary to advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, and contrary to Policies DES8, HODEV1 and HODEV2 of the East Dorset Local Plan adopted 2002.
Informatives:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.
In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application the applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.
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, Dorset County Council's Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
3 Implementation of this consent is subject to a unilateral undertaking dated 23rd September 2013 to secure: - the appropriate contribution in relation to Heathland mitigation as required by the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2012-2014 Supplementary Planning Document. - the appropriate transport infrastructure contribution in accordance with the South East Dorset Transport Contribution Scheme 2 Supplementary Planning Document April 2012.
4 The applicant(s) is (are) advised that the proposed development is situated in close proximity to the property boundary and "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996" is therefore likely to apply. An explanatory booklet relating to this Act is available free of charge from The DoE Publications Despatch Centre, Blackhorse Road, London SE99 6TT. Tel 0181 691 9191 (fax 0181 694 0099). Alternatively, copies of the booklet may be available from the District Council (subject to availability).
Policy Considerations and Reasons
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 HODEV1 HODEV2
Item Number: 6. Ref: 3/13/0670/FUL
Proposal: Sever land and erect 1 No 4 bedroom bungalow and garage as amended by plans received 26th September 2013.
Site Address: 18 Oaks Drive, St Leonards, Ringwood, for Taylor Grey Construction Ltd
Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp : 1 September 2013 Advert expired: Nbr -Nfn expired: 21 August 2013
St Leonards And St Ives Objection. Contrived plot, out of keeping backland Parish Council Comments: development. Inappropriate. Concerned about increase in traffic on blind bend. Concern about tree loss. Unneighbourly to the existing property due to driveway access. Detrimental to the amenity space of existing property.
Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, Development Liaison Officer subject to the conditions.
EDDC Tree Section Statement: The previously requested information / amendments have now been submitted and I therefore no longer have any arboricultural concerns.
However, should you be minded to approve this application please can you ensure that conditions are imposed.
Officers Report:
The application is brought to the Committee as the Officer's recommendation is at variance to the views of the Parish Council.
One letter of objection has been received from the immediate neighbour at 16 Oaks Drive concerned at the impact of development on the character of the area, trees, access and nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
Site Description :
The application site is located on the northern side of Oaks Drive. A single bungalow, with side extension sits in the centre of the plot, the side boundaries are formed by mature hedges and timber fences. To the front is a hedge behind which is a parking and turning area.
The application site is similar in size to many in the vicinity with a plot width of 33m; this tapers to 10m on the rear boundary. The plot has an overall depth of 90m.
The immediate character of the area comprises of bungalows set within generous curtilages, the properties face front onto the road with undeveloped gaps either side creating a spacious character to the locality. The plot widths are approximately 30m.
The site is more than 400m from a protected Dorset Heathland (SSSI)
Proposal:
The proposal is to sever the garden to form a new residential plot to the rear accessed via a new drive down the north west side elevation of the parent property.
A four bedroom bungalow will be formed with detached double garage and parking area for two cars alongside. The bungalow has a staggered footprint and fully hipped roof with eaves height of 2.4m and ridge of 5.75m.The bungalow is set 2.0m off the boundaries at the closet points. The internal layout is arranged with bedrooms to the front with kitchen and dining room opening onto the short rear garden. The side boundary to the access road is shown fenced although no details as to its height have been provided. The property will be finished in render and feature stonework under a clay effect roof tile.
The detached double garage has a pyramidal roof and is finished in similar materials
Considerations:
The redevelopment of residential properties within the urban area is normally acceptable subject to standard material planning considerations and the proposal meeting Policies DES8 and HODEV1 of the East Dorset Local Plan.
The key issues for consideration are (i) the impact of the proposal on the character of the area, and (ii) the impact on the amenity of neighbours; (iii) other issues.
(i) Character of the Area: The character of Oaks Drive derives largely from the space around dwellings which are, on the whole, located in plots having generous proportions. Oaks Drive is a road comprising bungalows (or bungalows with later additions including dormer windows) throughout its length.
In determining recent appeals, Planning Inspectors have differed in relation to their interpretation of character.
In dismissing an appeal for two detached bungalows and garages to the rear of 3 and 5 Oaks Drive, St Leonards in November 2010, the Inspector concluded in relation to character that:
'Oaks Drive is residential in character, generally comprising bungalows and dormer bungalows of a variety of designs, constructed in large plots. In my opinion, the large gardens, both front and rear, including at the appeal site, are very important features that make a major contribution to the character and appearance of this suburban
area. I accept that over time there has been some change to the layout of buildings and where some new development has occurred garden size has reduced and locally density has increased. However, this is not widespread and overall the important spacious character remains.
The proposed development would intrude into the open space provided by the gardens, causing an unacceptable increase in the general density of development and have a substantial impact on the overall spacious suburban character of the area. While the development would be to the rear of the existing dwellings, it would still be seen from the surrounding gardens and houses and would, because of the sloping nature of the land, be seen from the road over the existing houses. In my view, increased landscaping would not be sufficient to overcome this harm. While I accept that the design of the buildings would be consistent with the design of adjacent buildings and the trees nearby would not be affected by the development, it would, because of its siting and effect on spaciousness, cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and would not accord with the aims and objectives of LP Policies DES8 and HODEV1. There has been redevelopment off Fir Tree Close which is next to the appeal site and redevelopment of No 1 Oaks Drive with flats has been approved. To my mind these do/will cause a small 'concentration' of development in the vicinity of the appeal site, but do not justify the considerable further intensification that would occur with this proposal, and the impact that it would have on the spacious character of the area generally.'
In 2011 in respect of two appeals for bungalows to the rear of 8-10 Fir Tree Close, the Inspector noted that the area is characterised by low density bungalows with so called 'backland developments' at 1-3 and 17-23 Fir tree Close and Brockwood behind the appeal sites. He observed that the bungalows at 8 and 10 Fir Tree Close had generous front and back gardens. The resultant plots, for both the proposed and existing dwellings, would still be as large as, or larger, than those permitted nearby. 'Whilst each development has its own distinctive characteristics, the proposed dwellings would be tucked away and their impact on the area would be no greater than which has resulted from the other developments'. He went on to conclude that:
'On none of the above points do I find that either of the proposals would be in any way at odds with the developing nature of the area or harm its present character or appearance. On this issue, both proposals would comply with current policies DES8 and HODEV1 of the East Dorset Local Plan (LP), adopted in 2002, which permit housing development appropriate to the character of the settlement within existing urban areas, and permit proposals which would be compatible with their surroundings and harmonise with the townscape and general character of the area. Both schemes would also satisfy policy in PPS3 in favour of making effective use of land in suitable locations.'
More recently in 2012 three dwellings (one back land) at 62 Oaks Drive were allowed on appeal; the Inspector noted:
'While the rear garden areas of all three plots would be smaller than those of neighbouring properties, the proximity of the new dwellings' rear elevations to the back of their respective plots would not be easily appreciated in views from the street.
For these reasons, the resulting effect would appear neither unduly cramped nor out of keeping with its setting. I conclude that the area's character and appearance would not be materially harmed. The scheme would accord with policies HODEV2 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan (LP). While I am aware that 'backland' developments have been resisted at appeal in other parts of St Leonards (although others have been allowed), my decision is based upon the particular circumstances described above.'
The Inspectors have therefore reached different conclusions on the character and impact of such development on the area. The individual sites are of course different and each application must be considered on its merits.
In this instance having balanced the issues raised, it is considered that the erection of a single dwelling on this plot would not be detrimental to the character of the area. This view is taken on the basis that the new bungalow will be set well back into the plot and will not be read from the streetscene. Whilst the plot is indeed smaller the actual material impact of the creation of smaller gardens would not be materially harmful to the character of the area. The scheme complies with policies HODEV1 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and the objectives set out in the NPPF.
(ii) Amenity of neighbours. The proposal provides two parking spaces to serve the new dwelling and an adequately sized garden. Given these facts it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on the grounds of intensification of use.
In relation to overlooking, the proposal is for a bungalow; the degree of separation between the proposal and existing properties themselves and the presence of screening on the boundary are sufficient to avoid any harmful reduction in privacy to neighbours. In terms of massing the proposal is located to the north east of existing properties and as such there will be no adverse impact in terms of the development being overbearing or causing loss of light. Turning to noise and disturbance from the new driveway, the backland arrangement of the proposal results in a drive between Nos 18 and 20 Oaks Drive, given the distances involved, the fencing and the fact that the drive services one property an objection could not be sustained. This approach pays regard to recent appeal decisions for similar backland properties in the vicinity. A planning condition to ensure an appropriate low noise hard standing will be applied.
The proposal meets Policies DES2 and DES8 of the East Dorset local Plan.
(iii) Other issues
Highway safety and parking
Two spaces and double garage are provided to serve the development; this is adequate and will not compromise highway safety. DCC Highways raise no objection subject to a standard condition.
Trees
There is a sweet chestnut tree in the rear garden of No. 20 Oaks Drive, the applicant has provided a tree protection plan which has been agreed by the Council's Tree Officer; planning conditions will be applied to secure these protection measures.
Financial Contributions
The applicant has provided a signed unilateral undertaking to make a contribution towards the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework and the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme (SEDTCS2)
Summary
The proposal is well considered and will not compromise the character of the area, nor amenity of neighbours. The application is in accordance with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and the objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
8300/100 C 8300/101 B Barrell Tree Care 8300/100 C
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the development, hereby permitted, shall be identical in every respect to those of the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing.
4 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, alterations to the roof (including the insertion of roof windows) shall be carried out without express planning permission first being obtained.
Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied about the details of any proposal given the constricted nature of the site.
5 Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of trees on and adjacent to the site in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement prepared by Barrell Tree Consultancy, ref: 13216-AIA2-MW dated September 2013. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown on the revised Tree Protection Plan, ref: 13216-BT2, before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered or excavations made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be discussed and agreed at the pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.
Reason: In order that trees are protected.
6 Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development shall commence on site until the final specification for the proposed driveway has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The driveway shall then be installed as per the approved documents and this condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of its installation.
Reason: In order that trees are protected.
7 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include: means of enclosure; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures.
Reason: In order that the proposal complements the character of the area.
8 Soft landscape works shall include: planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme.
Reason: In order that the proposal complements the character of the area.
9 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority.
Reason: In order that the proposal complements the character of the area.
10 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 8300/100B has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
11 Before the development is commenced, the proposed access crossing from the nearside edge of the carriageway to the boundary of the highway shall be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
12 Notwithstanding details already submitted, full plans and particulars showing the final siting of the services shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to commencement of works on site.
Reason: In order that trees are protected.
Informatives:
1 In assessing this proposal the local planning authority has had regard to the guidance contained within the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and advising applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.
In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application: the applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted
3 The applicants have provided a unilateral undertaking to pay the appropriate contribution in relation to Heathland mitigation as required by the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2012-14 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), and the Transport Infrastructure Contributions in accordance with the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Supplementary Planning Guidance. (Revised April 2012)
4 Informative: The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council's Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
5 To fight fires effectively the Fire and Rescue Service needs to be able to manoeuvre its equipment and appliances to within a specified distance of any premises. The applicant should be advised to consult with Building Control and Dorset Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that Fire Safety - Approved Document B of The Building Regulations 2000 - can be fully complied with as this may be an issue.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: HODEV1 DES2 DES8 NCON4 TRAN14
Item Number: 7. Ref: 3/13/0681/FUL
Proposal: Proposed temporary (30 years) change of use from agriculture to agriculture and solar photovoltaic farm with associated static arrays of photovoltaic panels together with cabins to contain inverter cabinets and transformers and a cabin to house a substation, with perimeter deer fencing, landscaping and ecological enhancements. Site Address: Mapperton Farm, Mapperton, Almer, for Good Energy Mapperton Farm Solar Park (007) Ltd
Constraints Area of Great Landscape Value LP Bournemouth International Airport Groundwater Source Protection Zone Historic Contaminated Land Adjoining Authority Consultation Zone NATS Technical Sites Wildlife Constraint Site Notice exp : 26 September 2013 Advert expired: 13 September 2013 Nbr -Nfn expired: 24 October 2013
Sturminster Marshall Objection. Parish Council Comments: 1) The visual impact the development will have will spoil the openness of the Area of Great Landscape Value, which is also adjacent to a conservation area and in view of an AONB. It is inappropriate development for the location.
2) A physical archaeological survey and not simply a desk one should be completed prior to this submission.
3) World War 2 incident of munitions dumping by German plane - MOD records should be request, examined and a site survey conducted for signs of any contamination.
4) An accurate assessment of the land grading should be obtained from Natural England.
5) The deer fencing on the scale required for this site would have a detrimental impact on wildlife.
6) The infrastructure is felt to be inadequate to manage the quantity and size of the traffic movements.
7) A full environmental impact survey should be conducted and recorded for public records.
8) Accurate details of timescale and numbers of traffic movements needed as details provided questioned.
9) There would be a detrimental impact on the listed buildings and the heritage site.
10) Conditions required that guarantee the removal of everything at the end of its working life span.
11) The construction of the sub-station requires conditions that restricts its use solely to this one site.
12) The pile driving likely to cause a disruptive impact on the locality.
13) There are anomalies in the documentation, i.e. the ponds, land grading and the mention of Sturminster Newton.
14) The community funding would require protection of an article 106 should the plans be approved.
15) We request a site meeting by EDDC Planning Committee prior to their meeting.
16) Information is needed regarding the provision resources on the construction site.
Consultee Responses: Campaign To Protect Rural 1. Although Dorset CPRE is in principle supportive of England renewable energy, it strongly objects to this particularly damaging proposal for a 28 megawatt (MW) solar park. The proposed site is greenfield, in unspoilt countryside, agriculturally productive and protected by national and local policies. 2. Planned to cover 70.67 hectares (175 acres), this solar park would be the second biggest in the UK. The biggest, 34 MW, is on a brownfield site (a disused airfield, originally RAF Wymeswold) near Loughborough, Leicestershire1 (see photo above). The size of the proposal is such that it would be a large, artificial intrusion into beautiful, sensitive countryside and its scale would be incompatible with the small-scale landscape of its surroundings. 3. The proposed site would be totally within the Stour Valley/Mapperton Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)2. East Dorset District Council's Local Plan Policy LSCON23 states that within AGLVs development will be permitted where: (a) its siting, design, materials, scale and landscaping are sympathetic with the particular landscape quality and character of the AGLV, and (b) there would be no unacceptable damage to those built and natural
features, including important trees and hedgerows, that contribute positively to the landscape quality and character of the area. Covering an area of 70.67 hectares, the proposed development would physically destroy 5.5 per cent of the ALGV. This is clearly incompatible with Policy LSCON2 and consequently this proposed development should not be permitted. 4. The site faces southeast with a 20 metre (66 feet) drop from top to bottom4. This guarantees that the site (the size of 110 standard FA soccer pitches) would be impossible to screen from medium and long distance views without causing severe shadowing and a large drop in electricity generation. 4.1 The impact on views from locations such as the Purbeck Hills in the Dorset AONB and Morden need to be assessed. 4.2 The site would be clearly seen from the footpaths and bridleways surrounding the site. Walkers, riders and tourists would be adversely affected, especially those from Mapperton and Winterborne Zelston, which are only 500 and 750 metres away, respectively. 5. 'Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy', published by the Department for Local Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on 29 July 2013, states5 that a local planning authority should take great care to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large solar farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset. 5.1 Heritage assets are prolific in the area: 5.1.1 The southern edge of the 48.5 hectare Great Coll Wood, an Ancient Woodland, is 114 metres from the northern perimeter of the proposed 70.67 hectare installation. 5.1.2 A Roman road runs through the middle of the site. 5.1.3 There are listed properties in the nearby hamlets of Mapperton and Almer and the village of Winterborne Zelston. 5.1.4 Both Almer and Mapperton are Conservation Areas. "The surrounding countryside extends into and through the Mapperton Conservation Area. The gaps between the buildings should therefore be considered
as open countryside, rather than as village spaces" 9. This observation can be viewed in the context of the replacement of 70.67 hectares of open countryside 500 metres to the north of Mapperton with an industrial site containing 112,000 photovoltaic panels and supporting infrastructure. 5.1.5 Combs Ditch, 2 kilometres northwest, is the site of a major Romano-British defence line designed to hold back the Saxon invasion in the 6th Century. 5.1.6 Badbury Rings, the Ancient Monument in the care of the National Trust and in the Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire AONB, is 7 kilometres northeast at an elevation of 95 metres. 6. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at para.10910 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. The proposed development is clearly incompatible with NPPF policy and it should not be permitted. 7. 'Planning Practice Guidance' is clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities6. This statement recognises that the weight given to the need for renewable energy has led to a public loss of faith in the planning system. 8. 'Planning Practice Guidance' also advises that when considering locations for renewable energy cumulative impacts should be taken into account7,8. This has particular relevance for East Dorset, North Dorset and Purbeck which, collectively, already have a significant number of ground-based photovoltaic installations, either installed, awaiting construction, awaiting a decision or at preapplication stage. It could be that the proposed 28 MW Mapperton Solar Farm is one too many from a cumulative aspect. Guidance is clear that it is for local planning authorities to determine whether or not this is the case7. 9. Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change in the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), Gregory Barker MP, in his keynote speech to the Large Scale Solar Conference held at County Hall, Truro on 25 April 201312a, made the following statements that confirm and provide more detail to support the planning guidance advice set out in the DCLG document referred to above: 9.1 "Solar is a genuinely exciting energy of the future. But not at any cost, not in any place, not if it rides roughshod over the views of local communities. As we take solar to the next level, we must be thoughtful, sensitive to public opinion and mindful of the wider
environmental and visual impacts." 9.2 Referring to the current high public support for solar, he said "We want to keep it that way. This means it must work for local communities ...... with larger deployments brownfield land should always be preferred." 9.3 "...... solar has been installed on disused airfields, degraded soil and former industrial sites. This is the model for future solar projects". 9.4 "Our message is very clear. Where solar farms are not on brownfield land, you must be looking at low grade agricultural land which works with farmers to allow grazing in parallel with generation." 9.5 It can be noted that comments similar to the above were made by the Minister in an Oral Answer to a Question from Dr Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes, in the House of Commons on 11 July 201312b. 10. The proposed development site consists of agricultural land that has variously been classified under the Agricultural Land Classification system as Grade 2, 3a or 3b13,14. With reference to 9.4 above, none of these is 'low grade'15. 11. The NPPF at para.11211a states: "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land (i.e. Grades 1, 2 and 3a11b). Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality". With regards to this statement, it should be recognised that although Grade 3b land is poorer, relatively, than 3a it is not poor in an absolute sense - it is 'moderate'. 'Poor' is ascribed to Grade 4 (poor) and Grade 5 (very poor)15. 12. Thus, current Government policy, as set out in NPPF and as expressed by a Minister of State at DECC, is clear that only agricultural land Grades 4 and 5 are appropriate for deployment of large solar farms and on this basis alone the planning application for the Mapperton Solar Farm should be refused. 13. Regarding the necessity referred to at para.11 (line 3) above, there is no necessity for the proposed development at Mapperton. This issue is addressed in the following paragraphs. 13.1 There are less damaging alternatives that would achieve the same estimated renewable energy generation. For example, deployment on 5 smaller sites with a total of 28 MW. All these sites should be on level, no better than very poor agricultural land and have no surrounding sites from which they can be
overlooked. It is not unreasonable to suggest that sites with these characteristics will be forthcoming over the coming years. 13.2 It is clear that this proposed destructive deployment of 112,000 panels on a single site is inconsistent with East Dorset's vision for renewable energy generation from photovoltaic technology. 28 MW exceeds by 40 per cent the East Dorset District Council endorsed16 Dorset Energy Partnership's estimate of 19.93 MW for East Dorset's practicably accessible photovoltaic resource17. 13.3 This resource estimate was, and remains, based on small- to medium-scale, domestic, community, commercial and industrial roof-mounted installations, not large-scale, ground-mounted installations on greenfield sites. In fact, as at 24 September 201318, there were 1,171 photovoltaic installations in East Dorset with an average installed capacity of 3.47 kilowatts (kW) and a total of 4.06 MW. This is 20 per cent of the estimated resource. More importantly, 4.06 MW is estimated to generate 3.56 GWh annually This is 39 per cent of East Dorset's 2020 target of 9.07 GWh19 from photovoltaic installations. This is a notable achievement. 13.4 With 39 percent of the photovoltaic 2020 target already achieved and this without causing significant damage to East Dorset's scenic assets, agricultural assets, heritage assets and amenity assets and with 7 years and 3 months to the target date to go, it might be appropriate to pause and consider how best the remaining 61 percent of the target can be achieved. 13.5 Currently, apart from Mapperton Farm, there are two solar farm planning applications before EDDC that have yet to be determined. These are PA 3/13/0470/FUL: Homeland Farm, Three Legged Cross and PA 3/13/0669/FUL: Wedgehill Farm, Woodlands. At 12.5 MW, Homeland Farm would generate an annual 13.0 GWh and at 13.0 MW, Wedgehill Farm would generate 13.52 GWh. If the annual output of just one of these, say Wedgehill Farm, was added to the existing 3.56 GWh, the total of 17.08 would exceed the 9.07 GWh 2020 target by 88 per cent. 14. Of course, every effort must be made to fully exploit all of East Dorset's renewable energy resources and photovoltaic technology cannot be an exception. Although the Dorset Energy Partnership has made it clear that the current target for photovoltaic deployment is part of a challenging "ambitious aspirational" 17 one, it is there to be exceeded. However, as Minister of State Gregory Barker has stated, with specific reference to large-
scale solar, this must not be done at any price. The price that would have to be paid for Mapperton Farm far exceeds anything that East Dorset should be prepared to pay. 15. We hope the evidence and reasons we have provided are sufficiently strong for Planning Application 3/13/0681/FUL to be refused.
Senior Landscape Officer Natural Environment Team Dorset County Council
This assessment is based broadly on best practice methodology as set out in the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment’ (2nd Edition, 2003 and 3 rd Edition 2013).
Visual Assessment :
The visual appearance and impact on visual amenity of the scheme will be one of the key areas to understand and assess. The viewpoint sensitivity, magnitude of change and level of significance of impact is therefore assessed for key viewpoints to determine if the baseline assessment in the Nicholas Pearson Associates (NPA) report is reasonable.
TH Photo 9: View south west down New Road towards Shapwick. Taken as comparison with NPA View 1 only.
TH Photo 10: (Similar to NPA View 01) Beech Avenue; Kingston Lacey estate. Viewpoint sensitivity assessment: Criteria A-C used as defined below in High, Medium and Low categories.
A = Landscape visibility (location, context of viewpoint and amount of the landscape/site accessible to viewers). B = Number of people seeing the landscape/site (their expectations, occupation , activity). C = Nature at the viewing experience (importance of the view, period viewed and frequency of use/sequential).
♦ Overall viewpoint sensitivity defined as High/Medium/Low based on the criteria outlined in Appendix 1:
A = Medium B = Medium/Low = Medium/Low overall viewpoint sensitivity C = Medium
♦ Magnitude of change ‘created’ by the proposals based on criteria outlined in Appendix 1: NB: Assessed before mitigation
Magnitude of change for View 10 = Low
♦ Level of significance of impact based on criteria outlined in Appendix NB: Assessed before mitigation
Level of significance of impact of TH View 10 = Moderate/Low Adverse
TH View 12: (similar to NPA View 3)
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = High B = Medium C = Medium:
Overall viewpoint sensitivity Medium
♦ Magnitude of change: Medium
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate/Low adverse
TH View 13: (similar to NPA View 4)
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity A = Low B = Medium C = Low Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Low/Medium
♦ Magnitude of Change = Low/Medium
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate/Low adverse
TH View 15: (No similar view taken by NPA nearest view is 05) East Morden Drive looking north west towards the site from field gateway along road. A distant view with part of site visible as brighter green field.
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = Medium B = Low C = Medium/Low Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Low/Medium
♦ Magnitude of change = Low/Medium
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate/Low adverse
TH View 17: (No similar view taken by NPA, nearest is 010) Looking north north west towards Great Coll Wood on horizon from track
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = Medium B = Medium C = Medium Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Medium
♦ Magnitude of change = Low/Medium
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate/Low adverse
TH Photo 19: (No similar NPA view) View from track looking north north west from gap/gateway in field boundary hedgerow towards Great Coll Wood.
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = Medium B = Medium C = Medium Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Medium
♦ Magnitude of change = Low/Medium
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate/Low adverse
TH Photo 20: (No similar NPA viewpoint) View from track looking north through gap/gateway in field boundary hedges.
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = High B = Medium C = Medium Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Medium/High
♦ Magnitude of change = Medium/High
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate adverse
TH Photo 21: (No similar NPA viewpoint) View looking south from the track through a gap/gateway in the field boundary hedges. Taken for comparison and not assessed as not directly affected by development.
TH Photo 22: (Similar to NPA view 9)
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = High B = Medium C = Medium Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Medium/High
♦ Magnitude of change = High
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate adverse
TH Photo 23: (No similar NPA viewpoint) View looking east towards Little Almer Wood through gap/gateway in field boundary hedgerow from the track
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = High B = Medium C = Medium Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Medium/High
♦ Magnitude of change = High
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate adverse
TH Photo 24: (No similar NPA viewpoint) View looking south over site from northern end of track.
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = High B = Medium C = Medium Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Medium/High
♦ Magnitude of change = High
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate adverse
TH Photo 25: (Similar to NPA view 7)
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = High B = Medium C = Medium Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Medium/high
♦ Magnitude of change = High
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate adverse
TH Photo 26: (Similar to NPA view 6) View north
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = Low B = Low C = Low Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Low
♦ Magnitude of change = Low
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate/Low adverse
TH Photo 27: (Similar to NPA photo 8)
♦ Viewpoint sensitivity: A = High B = Medium C = Medium Overall viewpoint sensitivity = Medium/High
♦ Magnitude of change = Medium
♦ Level of significance of impact = Moderate/Low adverse
Visual Assessment Survey
As can be seen by the Moderate Adverse assessments above for viewpoints TH20, TH22, TH23, TH24 and TH25, I feel the NPA Assessment has played down the magnitude of change and the level of significance of impact from these key viewpoints along the central track and from some of the views “into” the site from public rights of way. The central track is a public right of way used walkers, cyclists and horse riders whose attention is focused on the landscape they are experiencing. Although I have no data as to numbers or frequency of use and the fact that some of these views will be sequential and through gateways in the hedgerow, the change in views will be substantial. The combined impact of not only the 2.65m panels but the 3m high cabins and 2.4m high deer/security fencing will contribute to this significant change in outlook.
In viewpoint TH23 the proposals will also be seen on the skyline and in TH24 and TH25 a proportion of the overall view “in the round“ will be visually dominated by the proposals until the suggested mitigation measures reduce these impacts. This will change and will impact in a moderate adverse way on the amenity of rights of way users who are likely to perceive the current views to be rural and undeveloped.
The photos taken in the NPA assessment are taken in the winter months and this provides an idea as to the effectiveness of the hedgerows and other vegetation in integrating and screening the proposals with no leaf cover. From these limited number of views it does appear that the tracery of winter branches will be reasonably effective in this regard but this is will only be so if the ongoing management is carried out properly.
The proposed sub station building and landscape treatment, if designed appropriately as suggested I feel will not create any significant adverse landscape and visual impacts. This is mainly due to its location in a ‘hollow’ which is not overlooked apart from the adjacent track.
I have seen two photomontage prints of unstated viewpoints in the 21.3.2013 Consultation Publication produced by Good Energy. http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/media/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSIdNTIwYTMzNjExNmFmYTcwMDAy MDExNTYyBjoGRVQ/Mappertonsolarfarm.pdf
These give a general idea as to the potential impact of the scheme but the viewpoints needed to be added. The latest photomontages produced by the developer have been emailed and are not presented in the recommended format outlined in the Landscape Institute best practice guidance which I feel is a significant omission. http://www.landscapeinstitute.co.uk/PDF/Contribute/LIPhotographyAdviceNote01-11.pdf
The outline methodology provided is limited. It does not state the mega pixels of the cameras used, there is no ‘wireframe’ view for each montage to help compare the topographical detail and no text is provided to describe the procedure used to render the images. I am also concerned, based on my brief analysis of the montages, that the most realistic representation of the proposals has been captured. For example the heights of the panels at 2.65m would in certain views obscure the current hedges and in other views the 2.4m high
fencing and the 2.65m panels would be seen at or over the height of the hedges. It must be noted that this is not robust evidence but I feel needs to be checked and analysed on site with the images in hand as recommended in the best practice advice note. There are none of the cabins shown on the latest set of photomontages and this is an omission.
The impacts of Glint and glare: Glint is defined as a momentary flash of light whilst glare is a more continuous source of excessive brightness. Section 3.4 of the NPA report mentions the ‘minimal risk of glare’ but there is no evidence to back this up nor is there any mention of glint. There have been studies looking at this and I feel these, and any others the applicant is aware off, need to be referenced.
Footnote: NPA Photo view 3. I am not sure that the site will be visible from this viewpoint. See Photo TH11. This needs to be checked.
Review of NPA Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment dated June 2013.
Landscape Character baseline ; 2.14: p 7-10: Apart from the visual impacts the impacts on landscape character will be the other main area to understand and assess. Within each of the criteria used in this section there is little justification to explain the conclusions drawn at the end of each of the 9 sub sections. I have therefore gone through each criteria and given my assessment which is laid out below: Scenic Quality : As this is part of a recognised local landscape designation (AGLV) and I feel this should automatically put the area into a HIGH/MEDIUM sensitivity ranking. A nationally recognised landscape designation such as an AONB or National Park would be ranked as HIGH. Landform : Undulating lowland landforms generally have a lower sensitivity to this type of development but since it is on a gently rising southerly slope within an overall undulating landform I assess this as LOW/MEDIUM sensitivity. Openness/enclosure : A strong sense of enclosure is likely to reduce sensitivity compared with an open landscape. In this case there is moderate enclosure in an otherwise open landscape. MEDIUM sensitivity. Landuse/landcover : Small fields and an irregular pattern are more sensitive than larger fields and a regular pattern. This area is mainly in the later category. MEDIUM/LOW sensitivity. Intervisibility : Areas which are overlooked are more sensitive and in this case there is some overlooking possible from several nearby locations but limited further afield. MEDIUM/LOW sensitivity. Perceptual qualities : Landscapes which are relatively remote/tranquil are perceived as rural which increases their level of sensitivity when compared with those which have signs of modern development and human activity. Despite being a man made agricultural landscape with some signs of modern agricultural management, it will be perceived largely as a rural and undeveloped area. HIGH/MEDIUM sensitivity. Cultural & historic landscape features : Landscapes with a high proportion of historic/pre- historic features are of a higher sensitivity than those without. In this case there is the line of a Roman road running across the area and some other features of interest in the wider area. LOW/MEDIUM sensitivity. Valued habitats : Landscapes with a greater numbers of important habitats and species are likely to be more sensitive. The area has some overall biodiversity interest e.g. in its hedgerows and in the adjacent woodlands. LOW sensitivity. Accessibility : Areas with greater public access will increase the number of people who are able to see the landscape. In this case there is one significant right of way running through the site and one other which affords a more elevated view of the site. MEDIUM/HIGH sensitivity.
My assessment of overall sensitivity of the landscape to this type of development is between
MEDIUM/LOW and MEDIUM. This puts the landscape into a slightly more sensitive category than NPAs assessment which was MEDIUM/LOW.
Prediction of Impacts : Section 4. Landscape Character Impacts:
4.4: I feel the LOW magnitude of change assessment for the operational phase of the development is played down in this section. Development of this type, with the combined effects of the panels, the security fencing and the cabins, in this part of the South Blandford Downs Landscape Character Area will change the character of the area despite it ‘sitting’ within the framework of retained hedgerows. As indicated on page 5 of the NPA baseline study, the key characteristics of this character area includes the significance of the ‘open landscape’ with ‘panoramic views’ and an ‘empty’ and ‘uncluttered’ character. This type of development will impact adversely on these key characteristics.
In terms of the perceptual qualities of character, the perception of this landscape at present is likely to be that it is seen as an intrinsically rural and undeveloped area. The proposals will have an adverse effect on this aspect of character and the panels and associated infrastructure will introduce what is likely to be perceived as unfamiliar, urban and industrial features.
Over time the proposed mitigation measures will assist in minimising some of the visual impacts but will also change some of the key characteristic low clipped hedges by allowing them to grow upto 3m. This may also introduce some management issues and problems in that some hedgerow bases may get leggy as the hedges grow up and enable views ‘under’ the hedge bases, so coppicing and laying may be required which in turn may open up views. An agreed Landscape & Ecological Management Plan for these hedges if implemented correctly over time should be able to resolve these issues.
As a late mitigation proposal the developer did suggest that hedges could be replanted between fields I and G and also between fields C and E. There is evidence that there were hedges in these locations and if replanted and allowed to grow up higher than the panels they may help to integrate the proposals into the landscape. However this has not been assessed in the submitted details and at a late stage the developer indicated that the wildflower corridors would be preferable, maybe due to the shading effect of any further hedge planting amongst the panels if allowed to grow up above 2.65m.
To summarise a MEDIUM/HIGH magnitude of change ranking is I feel a more realistic assessment of landscape character impact based on the criteria in section 2 of Appendix 1.
Overall Impacts Significance *
4.11: Landscape Character Impacts: I feel this section plays down the overall significance of impacts. This is illustrated on the first line of this section by stating the proposals will be ‘slightly at odds’ with the local landscape composition and stressing the reversibility of the proposals. The scheme is intended to be operational for 25-30 years and in places there will be a significant change in the existing character of the landscape. I feel this is greater than the ‘localised slight adverse effect’ on the AGLV mentioned. A more realistic assessment of the proposals is between MODERATE and MINOR adverse since as mentioned I feel the magnitude of change is greater than NPA stated and the sensitivity of the AGLV is weighted higher.
4.13: Visual Amenity: It is recognised in the NPA assessment that there will be a ‘noticeable deteriation’ in the some viewers experience and this is a realistic assessment.
My assessment is that the overall level of significance for visual amenity is between MODERATE adverse and MINOR adverse, of more significance than the MINOR adverse assessed by NPA.
4.15: Cumulative Landscape & Visual impacts: I agree with the NEUTRAL assessment of significance relating to cumulative impact stated in the NPA report.
Summary
As outlined above I am not convinced about the methodology or accuracy of the latest photomontages. Ideally I would like to see an alternative set produced and/or the latest images to be analysed by an approved consultant to test the accuracy of the methods used. This is important as the visual images are often scrutinised in greater detail than other material. It must be stressed however that they are only a technical tool to help understand the effects of the scheme and the written assessment is the main evidence base.
My overall assessment of significance of impact for both landscape and visual criteria lies between Moderate Adverse and Minor Adverse. This is a greater adverse effect assessment than that provided by the consultants who I feel have played down the significance of effect of the scheme in this part of the AGLV and the South Blandford Downs Landscape Character Area.
As a comparison in EIA terms an assessment of Moderate Adverse significance or greater would normally trigger the requirement for mitigating action to avoid, reduce or remedy the identified residual impacts. If this was not possible then compensation measures can be sought for example to conserve and enhance the landscape undergoing change.
In landscape and visual terms the assessment of just ‘below’ Moderate Adverse will result in some adverse impacts on the AGLV, on the South Blandford Downs Landscape Character Area and on the amenity of users of the rights of way through and around the site. The mitigation measures proposed and the production and implementation of an agreed Landscape & Ecological Management Plan will help to reduce the identified adverse impacts. These will take time to be effective as the planting matures and the landscape and ecological management measures take place and have an effect.
Appendix 1 Landscape & Visual Assessment criteria
1. Overall viewpoint sensitivity defined as High/Medium/Low based on these criteria;
High: ♦ Users of outdoor recreational facilities whose attention is focused on the landscape. ♦ Communities where the proposal results in changes in the setting or valued views enjoyed by the community. ♦ Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the proposal.
Medium: ♦ People engaged in outdoor sport or recreation whose attention maybe focused away from the landscape. ♦ People traveling through or past the proposal in cars, or other transport routes.
Low: ♦ People at their place of work, or engaged in similar activities, whose attention maybe
focused away from the change in view.
2. Magnitude of change ‘created’ by the proposals is assessed with criteria defined as:
High ♦ Total loss of or major alteration to key elements/features/characteristics of the baseline, i.e. pre-proposal landscape or view and/or introduction of elements considered to be totally uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape Medium ♦ Partial loss of or alteration to key elements/features/characteristics of the baseline, i.e. pre- proposallandscape or view and/or introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape Low ♦ Minor loss of or alteration to key elements/features/characteristics of the baseline, i.e. pre-proposal landscape or view and/or introduction of elements that may not necessarily be considered to be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape
Negligible ♦ Very minor loss of or alteration to key elements/ features/characteristics of the baseline, i.e. pre- proposal landscape or view and/ or introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding landscape- approximating the ' no change' situation
3. Level of significance of impact is assessed with criteria defined as:
Severe adverse The proposed scheme would result in effects that: ♦ Are at a complete variance with the landform, scale and pattern of the landscape; ♦ Would permanently degrade, diminish or destroy the integrity of valued characteristic features, elements and/or their setting; ♦ Would cause a very high quality landscape to be permanently changed and its quality diminished
Severe /Moderate adverse The proposed scheme would result in effects that: ♦ Cannot be fully mitigated and may cumulatively amount to a severe adverse effect; ♦ Are at a considerable variance to the landscape degrading the integrity of the landscape; ♦ Will be substantially damaging to a high quality landscape
Moderate adverse The proposed scheme would: ♦ Be out of scale with the landscape or at odds with the local pattern and landform; ♦ Will leave an adverse impact on a landscape of recognised quality.
Moderate /Low adverse or Minor Adverse The proposed scheme would: ♦ Not quite fit into the landform and scale of the landscape; ♦ Affect an area of recognised landscape character
Neutral The proposed scheme would: ♦ Complement the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape; ♦ Maintain existing landscape quality
Minor beneficial The proposed scheme has the potential to: ♦ Improve the landscape quality and character; ♦ Fit in with the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape; ♦ Enable the restoration of valued characteristic features partially lost through other land uses/management.
Moderate beneficial The proposed scheme would have the potential to: ♦ Fit very will with the landscape character; ♦ Improve the quality of the landscape through removal of negative impacts caused by existing land uses/management.
Major beneficial The proposed scheme would have the potential to: ♦ Enhance landscape character; ♦ Improve the quality/condition of the landscape through removal of negative impacts caused by existing land uses and through positive land management.
County Highways Following recent additional information from both the Development Liaison Officer applicant and the recommendations of the Highways Agency I now provide the following observations:
Notwithstanding the requirements set out in the Highways Agency's letter to East Dorset District Council dated 23/5/13 and in particular their condition relating to the reinforcement of the highway verge the County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following additional condition:
The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan and programme of works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement), vehicular routes, delivery hours and contractors' arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing, drainage and wheel wash facilities).
The plan shall also include:
Inspection of the highways serving the site jointly between the developer (or his contractor) and Dorset Highways prior to work commencing and at regular, agreed intervals during the construction phase so that
any damage to the edges of the carriageway and verges can be identified and suitable remedial works, to be paid for by the developer, agreed. A scheme of signing of the heavy vehicle route to the site agreed with advice/warning signs at appropriate points.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Dorset Wildlife Trust Dorset Wildlife Trust is concerned that this application is adjacent to a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Great Coll wood SNCI (SY89/025) is an example semi-natural deciduous woodland, which is listed as UK priority habitats under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006. Paragraph 117 of The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) states that planning policies should; "Promote the preservation, restoration and re- creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan". We note that the possible impacts on this SNCI are addressed in the Extended Phase I Habitat Survey/Impact Report. It is important that the mitigation listed in Table 3: Ecological Receptors, Potential Impacts, Design and Mitigation of this report should be adhered to in order to prevent damage to the SNCI. The mitigation measures are: - No night time working should be permitted to reduce impact on nocturnal fauna. - Panel arrangement should ensure sufficient offset from the woodland corridor (at least 10m). - Best practice working methods 'CIRIA Environmental Good Practice On-site' to be adopted during works. This should include measures to minimize risk of visual/noise disturbance during construction.
Natural England NO OBJECTION Issues concerning protected species Bats, Dormice and Great Crested Newts It is noted that a survey for European Protected Species has been undertaken in support of this proposal. Natural England does not object to the
proposed development. On the basis of the information available to us, our advice is that the proposed development would be unlikely to affect Bats, Dormice or Great Crested newts. For clarity, this advice is based on the information currently available to us and is subject to any material changes in circumstances, including changes to the proposals or further information on the impacts to protected species. The advice we are giving at the present time relates only to whether, in view of the consultation materials presently before us (including with reference to any proposed mitigation measures), the proposal is likely to be detrimental to the maintenance of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (i.e. the 'Favourable Conservation Status' test). We have not considered whether the proposal satisfies the three licensing tests or whether a licence would 1 Unless protected by Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Other species We have not assessed the survey for badgers, barn owls and breeding birds1 or widespread reptiles. These are all species protected by domestic legislation and you should use our protected species standing advice to assess the adequacy of any surveys, the impacts that may results and the appropriateness of any mitigation measures. be issued for this proposal. This advice is based on the information currently available to us and is subject to any material changes in circumstances, including changes to the proposals or further information on the protected species. Biodiversity enhancements Natural England concurs with the ecological enhancements in section 5 of the Extended Phase I habitat survey report and the mitigation measures listed in table 3 of the Extended Phase I habitat survey report and advise that these be secured through suitably worded planning conditions should permission be granted. It is recommended that the above measures should be implemented through a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP). This would detail creation, establishment and management prescriptions to enhance the overall ecological value of the site. The LEMP should provide details of how this management will be secured for the lifetime of the development in accordance with a suitable planning condition. Trees
Natural England would recommend that your authority take any necessary steps to ensure that mature trees that may shade the proposal site are protected from future felling. Landscape Having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal. The development however, relates to the Dorset AONB and the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB. We therefore advise you to seek the advice of the AONB Partnerships. Their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of the AONB designations. They will also be able to advise whether the development accords with the aims and policies set out in the AONB management plans. Other advice We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application: local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity) local landscape character local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species. Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the above. These remain material considerations in the determination of this planning application and we recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre, your local wildlife trust, local geoconservation group or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation document in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal before it determines the application. A more comprehensive list of local groups can be found at Wildlife and Countryside link. We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Alison Appleby on 07500 913698. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected].
National Grid Plant No response received Protection
Dorset Wildlife Trust Following the opportunity to see the site, we would make the following recommendations for biodiversity enhancement:
Hedges The hedges are very valuable habitat and it would be most beneficial if a new native hedge could be planted to join the existing established hedges to the SNCI woodland Great Coll Wood. This would provide a corridor for wildlife, thereby extending available habitat. We would recommend planting a variety of species in addition to those already on site, in order to provide a range of food souces: Field Maple, Dogwood, Wayfaring Tree, Guelder Rose, Spindle, Crab Apple and Holly.
Bird and bat boxes The siting of bird and bat boxes in the SNCI woodland would be of benefit to woodland birds and a variety of bat species, increasing the availability of nesting and roosting sites. This could include tawny and barn owl boxes.
The siting of one or two free standing barn owl boxes at the edges of fields away from the woodland has also proved successful where no suitable tree or barn nest box site is available. For more detailed information, please visit http://www.barnowltrust.org.uk/infopage.html?Id=42
Recommendations for Arable Reversion The restoration of grassland from arable land would be most beneficial to wildlife. Highly fertile soils will tend to favour the growth of competitive grasses and arable weeds and preclude the establishment of a diverse flower-rich turf, many notable/specialist species being restricted to infertile conditions. If aiming for chalk grassland it would be better to strip the topsoil and work with the subsoil (Cropping the grassland without adding fertiliser will also reduce the nutrient status but this can take several years) - ideally check the nutrient status and pH of the soil, a high phosphate content is likely to inhibit the development of diverse grassland. Failing this it would be better to aim for herb-rich grassland using a few species, often common ones that are likely to successfully compete with the grasses, whilst excluding the more competitive grass species. The following list is based on native species that would occur naturally on neutral to calcareous soils in this
area. Suggested species to be incorporated in a seed mix Suitable grasses: Common Bent (Agrostis capillaris), Red Fescue (Festuca rubra) and Crested Dog's-tail (Cynosurus cristatus) with smaller amounts of e.g. Sweet Vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), Smooth Meadow-grass (Poa annua) and characteristic of neutral to calcareous soils, Yellow Oat-grass (Trisetum flavescens) and Hairy Oat-grass (Avenula pubescens) avoiding (or accepting in only small amounts) the coarser vigorous species such as Cock's-foot (Dactylis glomerata), Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus) and False Oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius). If however there is scope to create a diversity of habitats these coarser grasses can be used locally to produce tussocky grassland that provides useful cover for small mammals, overwintering invertebrates etc, for example along some of the hedgerows. It is recommended to use 4-6 grasses in a mix with no one species more than 30% by weight. Suitable herbs might include Yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), Bird's-foot- trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Ox-eye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), Black Medick (Medicago lupulina), Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Red Clover (Trifolium pratense) (very good for Bumble Bees), Bulbous (Ranunuculus bulbosus) or Meadow Buttercup (Ranunculus acris) - not Creeping Buttercup, which is too vigorous - Common Sorrel (Rumex acetosa) and preferential of neutral to calcareous soils - which might only take in places but are worth having - Lady's Bedstraw (Galium verum), Rough Hawkbit (Leontodon hispidus), Carrot (Daucus carota) and Cowslip (Primula veris). Common Knapweed (Centaurea nigra) and Field Scabious (Knautia arvensis) are also good to include and generally regenerate successfully but should be used in smaller amounts as they are also competitive, Common Knapweed sometimes forming very dense stands. Such a mix includes some early (e.g Cowslip) and late flowerers (e.g. Knapweed) to ensure a continuous supply of nectar. Yellow Rattle (Rhinanthus minor) is a very useful herb to include as it is hemiparasitic on grasses and so can open up the sward and encourage more diversity. It is however an annual plant and as initial management might include repeated cutting to keep back weeds it might easily be lost. Seed can be broadcast once the weeds are under control and, as long as there are some small gaps in the sward, will take quite readily. It would be a
very good plant to add to the semi-improved grassland if this is to be enhanced There should be up to 20% by weight of wildflower seed (some sources suggest 25%), 80 % grass seed. It is important to check the origin of the seed if bought, ideally it should be locally sourced or at least regionally. It is also worth considering the use of seed harvested from a local site with similar geology and soil type. Ideally the site could be further enhanced by adding strips of other habitat e.g. arable weeds or flowering annuals. Sowing A recommended sowing rate is 15KG/ha for flower- rich grassland, the best time to sow being late summer to early autumn avoiding potential droughts and frost and allowing the seed a chilling period over the winter. (Yellow Rattle should only be sown in the autumn using seed harvested that year). Aftercare It is imperative that there is some aftercare in the first season. There is likely to be a flush of undesirable weeds both from the existing seed bank and from adjacent land including Docks, Thistles and Ragwort and these will need to be controlled if interesting grassland is to develop. They may require repeated cutting in the first year before flowering. It is important that the cut material is removed to prevent the smaller herbs being smothered and to prevent a return of nutrients to the soil. Long-term management Once the sward has established it is important that it is managed in a way that maintains its diversity. The spread of vigorous species including grasses and scrub can be kept in check by grazing or cutting. Sheep can be used but will graze flowerheads to a greater extent than cattle so grazing in the spring and summer needs to be light or intermittent, just enough to keep the grasses back whilst allowing a proportion of the plants to flower. They can also be used in the autumn and winter as long as poaching (damage to the ground from animals' hooves) is avoided in wet conditions and there is enough growth to avoid the need for supplementary feeding as this can introduce unwanted species into the sward and cause localised heavy poaching. If managed through cutting consider a traditional hay meadow management regime with a shut up period between May and mid-late July and aftermath grazing or a follow-up cut. An initial cut in early spring may also be required if a warm winter has resulted in
excess grass growth. Again cut material must be removed from the site. A mixture of meadow and pasture across the site would be ideal as this would meet the needs of a wide variety of insects, birds and small mammals and complement the woodland and hedgerow habitat. Useful websites Flora locale is an organisation that seeks to restore wild plants and wild-plant communities across the UK and provides some useful advisory notes on seeding at www.floralocale.org. Natural England also provides useful Technical Information Notes on its website www.naturalengland.org.uk Dorset Wildlife Trust October 2013
Highways Agency Advises that planning permision should either be refused or granted only subject to conditions
Ministry Of Agriculture No response received Fisheries & Food Senior Surveyor
County Highways The County Highway Authority shall be grateful if you Development Liaison Officer will allow an extension of time to the normal consultation period in order that the highway implications of this proposal can be properly assessed. We will let you have our comments as soon as possible. However this application should be referred to the HIGHWAYS AGENCY for their consideration and comment due its connection to the A31 trunk road.
I refer to my previous response dated 29/8/2013.
The County Highway Authority has concerns and requires further information being submitted showing the following details relating to the construction phase upon receipt of which final onservations will be provided. This application should be referred to the HIGHWAYS AGENCY for their consideration and comment due to its connection to the A31 trunk road.
The location and length of suitable passing spaces along the public highway leading from the A31 to the site as the existing road is constrained to only one vehicle width through much of its length and the verge may become overrun and the edge of the carriageway damaged.
The swept path of in-bound and out-bound articulated HGV's at the junction of the access route with the A31
taking into account an HGV waiting in the right turn lane.
Operational details provided of what procedures will be implemented to avoid conflict on the access route from the A31 between arriving and departing construction traffic.
Purbeck Borough Council The Council has no specific comments to make with respect to the details of the proposals and it assumed that the application will be assessed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and East Dorset District Council's relevant Development Plan policies. More generally, it is considered that before granting planning permission, East Dorset District Council needs to be satisfied that the following issues are properly addressed: - Impact on the openness of the SE Dorset Green Belt, both including that within the Purbeck District Council area - The impact on the character and visual amenities of the countryside landscape, including that within Purbeck District Council area. In this respect it is considered that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) should have regard to the cumulative impact of the proposals together with other solar and wind farms within the LVIA area. For information, Purbeck District Council have granted permission for a number of solar farms around the Lytchett Matravers/Lytchett Minster area of Race Farm, North Newton Farm, South Newton Farm, Slepe Farm and Redbridge Farm, Dolmans Hill. Further afield, planning permission has been granted for a solar farm at Trigon, near Trigon House, and there are current planning applications to extend the existing farm at Trigon and build a new solar park on land at Tout Hill north of Wool. Also, the cumulative landscape visual impact should have regard to the wind turbine which has been approved at Rogershill Farm, Bere Regis and the approved wind farm at Masters Pit, East Stoke. - Impact on heritage assets, including those within Purbeck District that could be affected, in particular, Charborough Park, a designated Historic Park and Garden, and the Morden Conservation Area. - Impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity and highway safety, including the potential impact of construction and decommissioning traffic accessing the site via Purbeck District. - Impact on important nature conservation
interests - Impact on public rights of way and bridleways - Impact on agricultural land supply - Drainage and soil implications of the proposals If planning permission is granted, appropriate conditions should be attached to ensure that the above issues are properly addressed and to ensure that the development is only for a temporary period.
North Dorset District Council North Dorset District Council has resolved to raise no objections to the proposal, subject to any comments listed below: 1. NDDC welcomes the commitment by Good Energy in their letter dated 23 September 2013 to discuss the community benefit package proposed with Lower Winterborne Parish Council to consider how it can be managed and allocated and which areas should benefit. NDDC would request that these discussions take place and are considered prior to any formal recommendation to East Dorset District Council's Planning Committee. 2. Given the topography of the landscape, the existing hedgerow screening and the limited impact on sensitive receptors in the district of North Dorset there is little impact on public interest in NDDC and therefore no objections are raised.
County Archaeological Leaving the line of the Roman Road undisturbed will Officer lessen the archaeological impact of the proposed development, and I note the applicant's willingness to undertake an archaeological evaluation of the proposed development.
My advice to Local Planning Authorities is always that such exercises need to be undertaken before determination of a planning application, but I understand that there are circumstances where an LPA may think it appropriate to take the pre- commencement option instead.
County Rights Of Way No response received Officer
Safeguarding Officer The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, this department has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Lower Winterborne Parish Object Council The size and scale of the development will not only be visible from several locations but will destroy an area identified as one of great landscape value. The Government has recently emphasised the preference for use of brown field sites or poor land for energy production. Good Energy has suggested that sheep will be able to graze the land. What is the likely period of time, annually, when this will be feasible and how can it be assured it will happen? Good Energy has stated that the ground will be sown with wild flowers etc. What guarantee is there of this happening? The proposed site is adjacent to Great Call Wood which is a Nature Conservation Area and a Site of Scientific Interest. Should the development receive approval, it is stated that Sturminster Marshall, Almer and Mapperton will receive some financial remuneration, possibly in the form of a reduction in energy bills in the case of Mapperton and Almer. Surely Winterborne Zelston, being only 700m from the proposed site, should also receive some financial recompense. There was considerable anxiety that if this development was approved and installed it could be sold on and after care promises ignored. Can a planning condition be stipulated that after care as agreed has to be continued by the new owners? The access point for the development from the A31 is a school pickup/drop off point resulting in a potential conflict. The A31 is a dangerous road in this vicinity. What assurances are there that these solar panels will not cause a distraction to drivers? Can the support post holes be bored as opposed to driven as this will reduce noise levels for local residents? The proposed access road is used by horse riders, cyclists, pedestrians and heavy goods vehicles. There is a real possibility of an accident between the users and the construction traffic (estimated at 24 heavy goods vehicle journeys per day). The road is very narrow and it is impossible for two large vehicles to pass. The access point from the A31 to the development access point cannot be seen from either end. The developer has stated that “banksmen” will be used to control the vehicles, but a more robust system is required or possibly a one way system through Almer is an alternative.
Officers Report:
This application comes to committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval as the representations of objection from the public exceed the threshold of 5 that trigger the application to be considered at a planning committee. Sturminster Marshall Parish Council has also objected.
Although not consulted on the application as it is not within the Council's administrative boundary, Lower Winterborne Parish Council has opposed the proposal, with concerns over visual impact; impact on SNCIs; allocation of community benefits; highway safety and noise during construction.
As adjacent authorities to the site, North Dorset District Council and Purbeck District Council were consulted, and no objections were raised by them.
Whilst not a statutory consultee, Members should be aware that a letter of objection has been received from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which strongly objects to the proposal, despite the CPRE being supportive of renewable energy in principle.
The CPRE state that the site is on greenfield land in unspoilt countryside, on agriculturally productive land, and the proposal is the second largest in the UK and would be a large artificial intrusion into beautiful countryside. It is also stated that 5.5% of the AGLV would be destroyed; the site would be impossible to screen from medium and long distance views and seen from public rights of way; there would be an adverse impact on heritage assets; the proposal is contrary to planning policy; there are other PV sites approved in the district and the proposal would have a cumulative impact in conjunction with these; solar power should not be at any cost; low quality agricultural land should be used; less damaging alternatives are available such as deployment of 5 smaller sites on well-screened, level low quality agricultural land; the proposal would exceed Dorset Energy Partnership's PV resource; in September 2013 PV energy installations in EDDC amounted to 39% of EDDC's target for 2020 and there are other schemes in the pipeline that are likely to achieve this target without the proposal; the price that would have to be paid for the proposal far exceeds anything that East Dorset should be prepared to pay.
At the time of writing the report, there have been 613 representations in response to the application, of which there were 331 letters in total with 27 from local addresses. There were also 282 standard letters of objection.
60 of the letters supported the proposal with the remainder objecting.
The issues raised include the following;
Objection
Visual impact on the Area of Great Landscape Value, incompatible with the small- scale landscape and impossible to screen, scale is too large and industrial, cumulative impact with other permitted and pending solar schemes in the district and adjacent districts, loss of good quality agricultural land, contrary to planning policy, impact on tourism, little economic value to community, impact from construction on
highway safety, impact on biodiversity, proposal driven by subsidies, impact on the agricultural industry, other brownfield or lower quality agricultural land sites should be used, good quality land should be retained for food production, impact on archaeology, impact on aviation, distraction to drivers using A31.
Support
Vital renewable energy project, agricultural land would not be lost, temporary development, benefits outweigh the harm, need to embrace new technology, will enhance biodiversity, Dorset needs the proposal to meet target for energy produced from renewable sources and share the UK's burden, alternative methods of energy generation are more harmful (i.e. fracking), will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, will contribute to the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Renewable Energy Strategy to 2020 (which requires 15% of its energy to come from renewables by 2020), will contribute to slowing down climate change, financial benefits for local communities, we owe it to future generations to reduce CO2 emissions, will help to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and imported energy, solar farms need to become an accepted part of the landscape as telecoms installations and electricity pylons have.
Glossary
AC - Alternate Current AGLV - Area of Great Landscape Value Arrays - rows of solar panels supported by metal frames CCTV - Closed Circuit Television CLO - County Landscape Officer CPRE - Campaign to Protect Rural England DC - Direct Current KWhr - Kilowatt hours LVIA - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LEMP - Landscape and Ecological Management Plan MW - Megawatts PV - Photo-Voltaic SNCI - Site of Nature Conservation Interest
The proposal
The application is to change the use of this agricultural land (which is in use for an agricultural crop) to use as a solar farm with the grassed areas around the photo- voltaic solar panel installations being grazed by sheep. A temporary period of 30 years is sought for the development.
The site would occupy 5 fields and has an area of 70.67 hectares (174.62 acres). A typical football pitch has an area of roughly 1.5 acres, which including the immediately surrounding land that goes with it, about 2 acres. Therefore to get an idea of the application site's scale, it equates to about 116 typical football pitches.
There would be 112,000 solar panels which would each measure 0.99m by 1.64m. These would convert energy from the sun to electricity, which is then transmitted to transformers and inverters housed in 24 small buildings which would be situated amongst the arrays.
These buildings would measure 4.5m to 6.5m across, up to 2.5m wide and up to 3m tall, and would convert the DC current generated by the PV panels into AC current.
The proposal would also require a substation building of 7m tall sited in a compound of 50m by 50m, to be located to the north of the PV arrays adjacent to an electricity pylon.
The solar panels will be attached to static frames and arranged in rows (also referred to as arrays). The top of the panels would be 2.62m above ground level with their lowest part 800mm above the ground. The rows would be between 3m and 7m apart and will face south with the PV panels angled at 35 degrees.
The solar panels will be blue/black in appearance and are designed to absorb sunlight. The supporting information states that these have little reflection or glare.
A 2.4m tall mesh type deer proof fence would be installed around the edge of the solar panels which would be visually permeable, and have a small gap beneath it to allow small animals to pass under it. This fence would be 3 to 4m from any hedges.
No levels are to be altered by the proposal and the solar panel supports are to be pile driven into the ground with no use of concrete.
No CCTV cameras are proposed.
The application is accompanied by the following documents; o A Design and Access Statement o Planning Statement o Agricultural Land Classification Report o Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment o Traffic and Construction Plan o Heritage desk based archaeological Assessment o Flood Risk Assessment o Statement of Community Involvement and proposed community benefits. o An Ecological Appraisal.
The construction of the solar arrays is stated to last between 13-20 weeks and will generate HGVs and other construction traffic. Once operational, the site would generate between 6 to 12 traffic movements per year to undertake routine checks and maintenance.
Access to the site will be via the A31 at Marsh Bridge using the right hand turn lane when approaching from the Wimborne direction. This route passes through the hamlet of Mapperton and is wide enough to accommodate the large vehicles proposed.
Benefits of solar power
There are several benefits of solar power as a renewable energy source;
During operation, PV technology emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases and uses no finite fossil fuels. As a renewable energy source, PV is relatively low impact being low in height compared with other forms of renewable energy production such as wind farms, emits no significant noise in operation and does not need significant maintenance.
The supporting information advises that the solar farm has the potential to generate up to 28 MW of electricity per year, which will be fed into the national grid. This would provide the power needs for about 6826 average Dorset households (based on 4266 KWhr per home) and would save about 12,521 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
The site
The application site is located some 670m to the north west of the hamlet of Mapperton, and some 720m to the north of the village of Winterborne Zelston. Great Coll Wood exists to the north west which is an Ancient Woodland and Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and Little Almer Wood to the north east, which is a plantation on Ancient Woodland but not an SNCI.
The site comprises 5 fields which belong to Mapperton Farm and are part of the Charborough Park Estate. It is located on a south east facing slope which is approximately 78m above sea level at its highest point falling to 50m at is lowest, and downhill of Great Coll Wood, and has some enclosure provided by hedges, hedge banks and woodland.
The site is in an Area of Great Landscape Value as identified in the East Dorset Local Plan. It must be noted that this is a locally recognized landscape and not a nationally designated landscape such as the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which is some 3kms to the east.
The site has been chosen as Dorset has a high number of sun hours per year and can be easily connected to the National Grid with no need for overhead wires.
Other PV installations in the district and adjacent districts
There are 3 other large scale solar farm planning applications that have been approved and are currently pending determination in East Dorset. These are:
• Application 3/13/0669 on 27.83 hectares of land at Wedgehill Farm, Woodlands (13 MW) - Pending • Application 3/13/0470 on 28.1 hectares of land at Homeland Farm, Ringwood Road, Three Legged Cross. (12.5 MW) - Approved October 2013. • Application 3/13/0948 on 12.9ha of land adj Henbury Quarry Old Market Road Corfe Mullen (4MW) - Pending.
Christchurch Borough Council recently granted consent for a solar farm on 48.5 hectares and 76.7 hectares of land at Chapel Lane Parley (3/12/0512 and 3/13/0332 refers). North Dorset District Council approved a Solar Farm on 9.7 hectares of land at Park Farm Irwerne Minster (2/2011/0304).
Purbeck District Council has approved a number of solar farm applications including most recently one on 14.5 hectares at Race Farm near Lytchett Minster (6/2013/0132).
Given the distances between the proposal and other solar farms in East Dorset and Christchurch districts and the other examples mentioned above, Officers do not consider there would be an adverse cumulative visual impact when the proposal is considered with these others.
Planning Policy
The policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework is relevant, particularly the 12 Core planning principles; Chapter 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change); Chapter 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) and Chapter 12 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).
Policies ME8 (Sources of renewable energy); HE3 (Landscape character) and ME1 (Nature conservation) are most applicable from the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.
Policies CSIDE1 (Countryside), LSCON2 (Impact on AGLV) and DES8 (Design and amenity) are relevant from the East Dorset Local Plan.
Other relevant policy at national and international level includes; i) The government's Energy White Paper 'Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy' 2003 ii) The Climate Change Act 2008 iii) The Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) iv) The Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset Renewable Energy Strategy to 2020 v) The Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy publication dated July 2013. vi) Natural England Technical Information Note TIN049: Agricultural Land Classification - protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land dated December 2012.
General commitment to solar energy
The government has stated that it is committed to meeting the UK's legally binding target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, and wants to move to a secure, low carbon energy system. This will mean increasing the amount of energy from renewable technologies and will help to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses.
However, the government emphasises that new renewable energy infrastructure should be in locations where the environmental impact is acceptable.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Three of the 'Core Planning Principles' identified at Paragraph 17 of the NPPF are relevant to the proposal. These state planning should;
1) Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;
2) Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy.
3) Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in the NPPF.
Paragraph 109 of Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things, "protecting and enhancing valued landscapes".
It is clear that the NPPF regards landscape and visual impacts of development as being a material consideration, and this applies even in landscapes that have no national designation. In this context, locally important landscapes such as AGLVs could be regarded as 'valued landscapes' that are referred to in paragraph 109.
Section 12 is concerned with 'Conserving and enhancing the historic environment'. Paragraph 126 emphasises that heritage assets are an "irreplaceable resource", and directs local planning authorities to "conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance".
Paragraph 129 advises local planning authorities to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal, before going on to require consideration of the effect that a proposed development will have upon it, and makes specific reference to development which affects the setting of heritage assets.
Paragraph 132 also refers to the potential for development to cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset by reason of impact on its setting.
Paragraphs 133 and 134 speak of 'substantial harm' and 'less than substantial harm' to the significance of a designated heritage asset and the need to weigh any such harm against the benefits of the proposed development.
Section 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) also provides support for renewable energy development. The opening paragraphs of this section set out the role that planning has to play in helping to secure "radical
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions [and] supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure".
Thereafter, Paragraph 97 states that local planning authorities should recognise the need for all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable sources, and Paragraph 98 directs authorities to approve planning applications for such development "if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable".
Paragraph 9 advises that the pursuit of sustainable development includes "moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature"
The Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy
This document advises that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. It is stressed that the planning concerns of local communities should be properly heard in matters that directly affect them.
This document advises that an application should only be approved if the impact is (or can be made) acceptable.
The advice sets out factors that need to be considered in the planning assessment, and the ones relevant to the proposal are; i) Large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment. However, the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively. ii) If a proposal involves greenfield land, it should allow for continued agricultural use and/or encourage biodiversity improvements around arrays iii) Solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and the land is restored to its previous use iv) The effect on landscape of glint and glare and on neighbouring uses and aircraft safety v) The need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing vi) Great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large scale solar farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset
vii) The potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges viii) The energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons including, latitude and aspect ix) Cumulative impacts require particular attention, especially the increasing impact that large scale solar farms can have on landscape and local amenity as the number of solar arrays in an area increases
East Dorset Local Plan
The most important policies in the local plan that relate to the proposal are; Policy LSCON2 concerns the AGLV and states that development will be permitted where: (a) its siting, design, materials, scale and landscaping are sympathetic with the particular landscape quality and character of the AGLV, and (b) there would be no unacceptable damage to those built and natural features, including important trees and hedgerows, that contribute positively to the landscape quality and character of the area.
Policy CSIDE1 states that development which would damage the rural character of the countryside will not be permitted, and new buildings or other physical will only be permitted in the open countryside where they are: (a) required for agricultural, farm diversification or forestry purposes which cannot be accommodated in existing buildings; or (b) small scale developments ancillary to outdoor recreational use; or (c) for service infrastructure for which a countryside location is essential; and (d) will not harm the visual amenities of the countryside by reason of the scale, siting, materials and design of any structures used, or car parking. Where new buildings are permitted they should be located so as to form a group with existing buildings wherever possible. In cases where this is not possible, buildings, car parking areas and any other new structures should be sited where they will be well screened and unobtrusive in the landscape. Policy DES8 requires the proposal to be compatible with or improve its surroundings in terms of; i) layout; ii) site coverage; iii) architectural style; iv) scale; v) bulk; vi) height; vii) materials; viii) landscaping; ix) visual impact; x) their relationship to nearby properties; and xi) their relationship to mature trees.
These factors will be assessed in the context of the sites themselves, their immediate surroundings and more distant views. The proposal is also to be easily assimilated into the landscape or would be well-related to a group of established buildings.
Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy (emerging and not yet adopted)
Policy HE3 states that within the AGLVs, development will be permitted where its siting, materials, scale and landscaping are sympathetic with the particular landscape quality and character of the AGLVs.
Policy ME8 states that the Councils encourage the sustainable use and generation of energy from renewable and low carbon sources where adverse social, environmental and visual impacts have been minimised to an acceptable level. It also states that proposals for renewable energy apparatus will only be permitted where: i) The technology is suitable for the location and does not cause significant adverse harm to visual amenity from both within the landscape and views into it, and within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB is in accordance with the current AONB Management Plan; ii) It would not have an adverse ecological impact upon the integrity of protected habitats or species unless there is no alternative solution and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest; iii) It would not cause interference to radar, or electronic communications networks, or highway safety; iv) It would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity by reason of visual impact, noise, vibration, overshadowing, flicker (associated with turbines), or other nuisances and emissions; v) It includes an agreed restoration scheme, any necessary mitigation measures, with measures to ensure the removal of the installations when operations cease; vi) Safe access during construction and operation must be provided; and vii) It avoids harm to the significance and settings of heritage assets.
Policy ME1 requires developments to; i) avoid harm to existing priority habitats and species through careful site selection, development design and phasing of construction and the use of good practise construction techniques. ii) Retain existing habitats and features of interest, and provision of buffer zones around any sensitive areas. iii) Enhance biodiversity through improving the condition of existing habitats and achieving net gains in biodiversity, where possible. iv) Where harm is identified as likely to result, provision of measures to adequately avoid or adequately mitigate that harm should be set out. Development may be refused if adequate mitigation or, as a last resort compensation, cannot be provided. v) Provision of adequate management of the retained and new features. vi) Monitoring of habitats and species for a suitable period of time after completion of the development to indicate any changes in habitat quality or species numbers, and put in place corrective measures to halt or reverse any decline.
Main impacts
The main impacts from the proposal are considered to be on the landscape and agricultural land. Other impacts include those on biodiversity; highway safety; aviation safety, historic assets and surface water runoff.
Although not a matter that can be considered when assessing the planning application (nor would it be tied to it), a financial contribution to local communities is offered by the applicants, and is set out in the submitted Statement of Community Involvement and Proposed Community Benefits.
This would involve the applicants committing to contributing to a community fund of £25,000 per year (with at least £5000 going towards projects in Mapperton Parish). Over the lifetime of the proposal, this would total £625,000.
Impact on the landscape
Given the large area to be occupied by the proposal and the site's position in an AGLV, Dorset County Council's Landscape Officer was consulted to give an independent view on the landscape impact of the scheme, and also comment on the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) by Nicholas Pearson Associates.
The site has no trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders on it and the landscape issues have been addressed by the County Landscape Officer. The Council's Tree Officer was not consulted therefore.
The site is immediately to the south east of an area of woodland known as Great Coll Wood, and to the south west of another smaller area of woodland at Little Almer Wood. The PV arrays would be installed below the 80m contour and above the 50m contour in the landscape, with the arrays facing south to maximize solar gain. The arrays are to be fixed with no movement to track the sun.
There are mature hedges that enclose the site for the PV arrays and the 5 fields that the site encompasses are broken up by hedge boundaries. The arrays are to be divided into 9 areas with spaces between them.
The submitted LVIA advises that the main landscape effects from the proposal include temporary loss of existing pasture during construction and the long-term alteration to the nature of the land cover. It identifies the main visual effects as the temporary impacts of construction activities on users of the surrounding public rights of way and on local views to the south, south east and south west. During operation, there would be long-term effects from the solar arrays, sub-station and new planting on near views, on views from elevated land to the west and on a track on lower land to the south east.
Existing hedgerows will be reinforced in any places where they are gappy using native species, and a new hedgerow is proposed along the field leading up to and alongside the site for the new sub-station which will join existing hedgerows.
The LVIA concludes that the proposal would have a Minor Adverse effect on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity, and a Neutral effect on the Overall Cumulative Effects with other renewable energy developments.
Landscape is defined in the European Landscape Convention as 'an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors'
The site lies in National landscape Character Area (NCA) No.134: Dorset Downs and Cranborne Chase, and the LVIA states the key characteristics of this landscape are: i) A rolling, chalk landscape with dramatic scarps and steep-sided, sheltered valleys. ii) Scarp slopes with species-rich grassland, complex combes and valleys, spectacular views, prominent hill forts and other prehistoric features. iii) Open, mainly arable, down land on the dip slope with isolated farmsteads and few trees. iv) Very varied valleys with woodlands, hedged fields, flood meadows and villages in flint and thatch. v) Distinctive woodland and deer parks of Cranborne Chase.
There are also the North Dorset District Council Landscape Character Assessment 2008 and the East Dorset District Council Landscape Character Assessment 2008 to consider, and these identify the application site and surrounding area as in the South Blandford Downs area.
The LVIA is an extensive document and it is not intended to reiterate its content in this report, but instead summarise its conclusions, so these may be compared to those of the County Council's Landscape Officer (CLO) who has been commissioned to advise the Council on the proposal's impact on the AGLV.
Landscape Character
The LVIA advises in terms of the overall impact significance, that the proposal would have some localized, slight adverse effects on the scenic beauty and landscape character of the AGLV, and although it is possible to mitigate this impact to an extent, it cannot be fully mitigated. It concluded in respect of the proposal's level of significance of impact on landscape character, the impact would be of Minor Adverse significance.
However, the CLO advises that the impact on the landscape during operation would be greater than the LVIA suggests, and the proposal would adversely impact on the open landscape with its panoramic views and empty and uncluttered character. He states there would be an adverse effect on the landscape character given what is likely to be perceived as an unfamiliar, urban and industrial feature.
Nevertheless, he also considers that over time the proposed mitigation measures will assist in minimising some of the visual impacts, notably allowing the hedges to grow to 3m in height.
The CLO advises that the proposal would have an impact of between Minor Adverse and Moderate Adverse significance. This is of more significance than stated in the LVIA, as the CLO considers the magnitude of change would be greater than stated, and the AGLV landscape status should be afforded greater weight.
Visual Amenity
The LVIA advises that the proposal would not be visually intrusive in the majority of views into the site, and in the short-term, users of the adjacent rights of way would
experience a noticeable deterioration in view, as they pass through the landscape. Views of the site will be generally be glimpsed between hedgerows, and in the medium term, these views of the site will become barely perceptible, once proposed new planting has established.
The LVIA states that local views from walkers in the nearby registered Charborough Park and Stag Gate vicinity would continue to be largely interrupted by intervening vegetation and there would be a barely perceptible alteration to these views, and during construction and/or immediately following construction, disruption would be temporary and affect only a few immediate local views.
The LVIA concludes the significance of impact on visual amenity to be Minor Adverse.
The CLO agrees with the LVIA that there would be a noticeable deterioration in some viewers' experience and considers this to be a realistic assessment. He advises that the level of significance for visual amenity is between Minor Adverse and Moderate Adverse, which is greater than suggested in the LVIA.
Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts
The CLO agrees with the LVIA's assessment in this regard in that there would be a Neutral significance of impact.
The CLO concludes his report by advising that in landscape and visual terms the proposal would result in some adverse impacts on the AGLV, on the South Blandford Downs Landscape Character Area and on the amenity of users of the rights of way through and around the site. The mitigation measures proposed and the production and implementation of an agreed Landscape & Ecological Management Plan will help to reduce the identified adverse impacts, but these will take time to be effective as the planting matures and the landscape and ecological management measures take place and have an effect.
Impact on agricultural land
The application includes an Agricultural Land Classification Report (the Report) by Luscombe Maye Agriculture and Rural Planning consultants. This identifies that the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Map shows the application site in Grades 2 and 3.
Grade 1 is the best quality land and Grade 5 is the poorest. However, due to the large scale (1:250,000) of this map, a physical inspection was made by Luscombe Maye to fully assess the Grading.
Following the inspection, the Report found that the application site was made up of Grade 3a and 3b land, and the soils are stony and would limit the variety of crops that could be grown.
The ALC states that Grade 2 is very good quality land and a range of agricultural and horticultural crops may be grown, but there may be reduced flexibility. Yields are generally high.
Grade 3 is defined as good to moderate quality land, where more demanding crop yields are variable and lower than on Grade 2 land. Within Grade 3 there are 2 subgrades; 3a and 3b. Grade 3a is good quality land and Grade 3b of moderate quality.
The application would result in good quality agricultural land being restricted in use as the development would only allow sheep to graze around the arrays. However, it would not sterilize the land or take it out of agricultural production permanently, and the site could revert to agriculture after the 30 year lifetime of the solar panels.
Additionally, there is no guarantee that the site would be cropped for food stuffs in the future, and could be used for bio fuel (i.e. oil seed rape), which is not a food crop.
The NPPF (para 112) advises that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of a higher quality. The glossary of the NPPF states that land in grades 1, 2 and 3a is defined as the 'best and most versatile agricultural land'. Thus, in the decision, weight must be attached to the temporary loss of good quality agricultural land.
The government's Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy encourages the effective use of previously developed land, and advises that if a site is on greenfield land, the proposal should allow for continued agricultural use and / or encourage biodiversity improvements around the arrays.
The proposal would restrict the type of agriculture that was possible on the site, but not prevent sheep being grazed which are farmed for their meat and wool, and represent a type of agriculture. It would not allow arable crops to be grown and therefore would prevent the production of foodstuffs for the lifetime of any planning permission.
The proposal offers biodiversity enhancements around the arrays in the form of the sewing of wildflower seed mixes to provide a range of flowering times, responses to drought and to provide benefits to wildlife.
The loss of this good quality agricultural land may reduce the UK's capability to produce arable crops, and this issue attracts weight in the planning assessment. However, as the land would remain in use for grazing sheep (which is in itself agriculture) and biodiversity improvements between the arrays have been offered by the applicant, the proposal is considered to comply with the government's Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.
Impact on biodiversity
The proposal would have an impact on biodiversity, and an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey/Impact Report (the Report) has been submitted to address this.
This identifies 4 (non-statutory) designated sites for their conservation value within a 1 km radius of the site. These are Den Wood (SNCI - semi-natural deciduous woodland) to the west, Great Coll Wood (SNCI - ancient woodland and plantation on
ancient woodland) to the north and west, Sturminster Marshall Ponds (SNCI - Great Crested Newt population) to the south and Little Almer Wood (Plantation on ancient woodland) to the east.
The Report shows there are numerous protected and notable species within 1 km of the site (extended to 4 km for bats).
With the exception of the boundary features such as hedges, the site is stated to be of low intrinsic ecological value. However without mitigation the proposal has the potential to generate ecological impacts, and the advice given by the applicant's ecologist is based on all the existing hedgerows being retained.
Impacts on ecology from construction have been identified as well as opportunities for ecological enhancements, and the Report recommends measures to be implemented through a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP). This could be imposed as a condition if approval was granted.
The proposed ecological improvements offered by the proposal are set out in the Alaska Environmental Contracting report submitted with the application. These include the sowing of a mix of wildflowers and more traditional grass mixes which would attract wildlife. This will include bees (which are in decline) and ground nesting birds.
No insecticides or fertilizer would be used in the proposal, and the vegetation around the PV panels would be controlled by sheep grazing with some mowing if needed. This would stop the passage of insecticides and fertilizer into the ground, which is an ecological advantage on such a large area of land.
The report states that the soil at the site and at the base of the hedgerows has been treated with artificial fertilizer, and nutrient rich soils near hedges may be removed so that traditional hedge bottom species may be planted such as bluebells. The Dorset Woodland Trust has recommended that the proposed temporary unloading area is moved further from the edge of Great Coll Wood to allow at least a 15m wide buffer zone, with a planted area around the area. The applicant's agent has confirmed that the compound will leave at least 20m between the compound and the edge of the wood. Should the solar farm gain approval, it is scheduled to be built by April 2014, and this therefore leaves a very short period for the planting to take effect. Therefore it is not considered necessary to require the planted area around the unloading area. When finished with, the unloading area will be planted with wild flowers.
Dorset Wildlife Trust has commented and advises that the mitigation offered in the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey/Impact Report is carried out.
Natural England has raised no objection in respect of the proposal's impact on bats, dormice and great crested newts, and advised that its protected species Standing Advice is used to assess the impact on badgers, barn owls, breeding birds and reptiles. The Standing Advice has been applied by Officers, and it is considered that given the nature of the proposal, which seeks to retain boundary hedges and other vegetation, and enhance biodiversity, the likely impact on these species is not significant.
Should approval be granted, a condition is advised to require the development to be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation set out in Table 3 of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey/Impact Report.
The ecological enhancements proposed should be afforded weight in the assessment as improving biodiversity is one of the government's aims and this is set out in the NPPF.
Impact on highway safety
Dorset County Council Highways initially had concerns with the construction phase of the works, notably, over-running of highway verges by construction vehicles given the lack of passing spaces on the lanes approaching the site, and access from the A31 by articulated HGVs.
The Highways Agency has raised no objection, subject to a condition to require details to be submitted and agreed regarding reinforcement of the highway verge at the junction between the A31/Marsh Bridge, which is likely to be overrun by HGVs accessing the site during construction.
It is considered that the main impact on highway safety would occur during construction, and there would be little impact during operation. With suitable mitigation in place such as highway verge reinforcement and that offered in the Traffic and Construction Plan, the impact on highway safety should not be significant, and limited in its duration.
Impact on aviation safety
Given the potential impact on aviation from the proposal, East Midlands Airport (as the formal consultation body for the area) was consulted.
No objection was raised, and therefore the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on aviation safety.
Impact on historic assets
There are no designated heritage assets in the application site area, and the designated heritage assets in Mapperton and Winterborne Zelston such as Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings are considered to be sufficiently distant from the proposal to prevent any adverse impact on their setting.
The submitted Heritage desk-based assessment states that it is highly likely that the site could contain buried archaeological remains of the Roman Road that runs across it, and these would be classed as historic assets. However, it advises that any remains are likely to have been damaged through ploughing, which may limit their significance, and the limited physical impact from the proposal would limit the impact on any archaeological remains.
The Assessment concludes that the proposal would not cause substantial harm or total loss of significance to a designated heritage asset.
Paragraph 135 of the NPPF advises that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the historic asset.
Dorset County Council's (DCC's) Archaeologist has advised that leaving the line of the road undisturbed as proposed will lessen the archaeological impact of the proposed development.
Although the applicant is willing to undertake the archaeological evaluation of the proposed development, DCC's Archaeologist considers this work needs to be undertaken before determination of a planning application. However, he has advised that there are circumstances where a Local Planning Authority may think it appropriate to impose a condition to require an archaeological evaluation to take place prior to the commencement of development. In the case of the proposal, Officers consider that a pre-commencement condition would be appropriate, given that this would achieve what DCC's Archaeologist requires prior to any development occurring. Should archaeologically important remains be found, it could delay the construction period and when the solar farm is operational. It could also alter the layout of the arrays. However the applicant is willing to accept these risks if permission was granted.
Impact on surface water runoff
Given the large area of the site and its position in Flood Zone 1 (least risk), a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted as required which contains a surface runoff assessment.
The FRA concludes that the proposal would not result in increased flood risk to the site or adjacent land, and would have a minimal impact from surface water runoff.
The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal.
Conclusion
The NPPF supports the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate in its Core Planning Principles, whilst also encouraging the recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. These aims are relevant to the proposal and can often conflict with one another, as they do in the case of the proposed solar farm.
The NPPF states that planning has a key role to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to minimise vulnerability and resilience to the impacts of climate change, and planning should support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.
It also states that all communities have a responsibility to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. However, it is important to note that this is not the case if the impacts from the proposals are unacceptable or could not be made acceptable.
East Dorset has no large-scale renewable energy schemes of the size of the one proposed, and the proposal would contribute significantly to the district's power generation by renewable means, whilst emitting no pollution during operation. This is of great importance in today's times of predicted energy shortages.
If permitted and built, the proposal would contribute greatly to the UK's target of 15% of its energy generation from renewables by 2020, and also the target of 7.5% from local sources. If all the other solar farms permitted and awaiting determination in the district and others in Dorset were permitted and built, the proposal in combination with these would exceed these targets and can be seen to accord with the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Renewable Energy Strategy to 2020. There is however no guarantee that all these schemes will be built and some may take time to become operational.
To exceed this relatively small target is desirable to permit a swifter and meaningful transition to a low carbon future and allow Dorset and the UK to be more self- sufficient in terms of energy generation, and it is important to make the UK more resilient to increasing levels of energy demand in the interests of future generations.
The application site is not in or immediately adjacent to any nationally designated landscape areas (such as AONBs), but is in an AGLV which is locally recognised landscape. The County Landscape Officer (CLO) has advised that the solar farm would have an adverse impact on the key characteristics of the landscape and there would be a noticeable deterioration in the visual experience of some users of the countryside. He also states that there would be a neutral impact when the solar farm is assessed in conjunction with the other permitted solar installations in the area.
The proposal would make a large area of good quality agricultural land less flexible in terms of the range of farming practices that can be carried out on it, and this is of importance in the planning assessment.
The temporary (30 years) period proposed and the low-impact nature of construction which would not affect any existing features such as hedgerows or buildings that contribute to the quality of the landscape, should be allowed for, in addition to the fact that once decommissioned, the land could revert back to agricultural use very quickly.
The ecological enhancements that would arise from the proposal are a benefit and should attract some weight in the assessment, given the NPPF's encouragement for proposals to increase biodiversity.
Having had regard to the numerous representations of objection and support and the advice of the various consulted parties, Officers consider that the impacts and benefits of the proposal are finely balanced.
It is considered that East Dorset needs to provide its share of the UK's overall renewable energy resource, and the proposal would provide a meaningful addition to this, which has the potential to be delivered swiftly.
It is evident that there would be an adverse impact on the AGLV from the proposal and significant weight should be afforded to this in the assessment. However this impact would be lessened once the mitigation proposed has had time to take effect (increase in height of hedgerows and reinforcement of hedgerows where necessary).
The combined weight that the proposal attracts from its provision of renewable energy and ecological enhancement is considered to be greater than the weight to be afforded to the impact on the AGLV and loss of flexibility of good quality agricultural land, and tip the balance in favour of the proposal.
Therefore, a recommendation of approval is given by Officers.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Good Energy Drawing GE-LP1007: Location Plan Good Energy Drawing GE-SL1007-PL: Site Layout dated 16.5.2013 Good Energy Drawing GE-SL1005-PL: Site Fence dated 16.4.2013 Good Energy Drawing GE-SF1007-PL: Inverter Housing dated 16.5.2013 Good Energy Drawing GE-EL1007-PL: Elevations dated 16.5.2013 Good Energy Drawing GE-SC1007-PL: Site Clearances dated 16.5.2013 Good Energy Drawing GE-TO1007-PL1: Topography 1 dated 16.5.2013 Good Energy Drawing GE-TO1007-PL2: Topography 2 dated 16.5.2013
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 The permission shall expire no later than 30 years from the date when electricity is first exported from any part of the array to the electricity grid network ('First Export Date'). Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after the event.
Reason: To limit the lifetime of the development.
4 All solar panels, their supports, the inverter, the substation, deer proof fencing and any underground services or concrete associated with the development must be removed from the site within 6 months of the solar farm ceasing to be operational.
Reason: The application site lies in the open countryside and it is important that once the development has ceased the site is brought back into a full agricultural use in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF.
5 No solar panels, frames/supports, inverters, transformers, substation and deer-proof fencing shall be erected/installed on the site until a schedule of materials for these structures and details of their colour and finishes has been first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
6 Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) and Monitoring Programme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Dorset County Council's Natural Environment Team. This shall include the mitigation and enhancement measures listed in the submitted Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report and those contained in the submitted report by Alaska Consulting. Once approved, the ecological mitigation and enhancement works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved LEMP, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The LEMP shall detail management practices to enhance the overall ecological value of the site, and should provide details of how this management will be secured for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In order to ensure that the development maintains and enhances the landscape and wildlife features at this site, and in the interest of increasing biodiversity.
7 Prior to commencement of works on site, full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include areas for new planting and reinforcement of existing hedgerows and the retention of all existing hedgerows and trees on the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the connection of the solar farm to the National Grid or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, and to ensure the approved landscaping scheme is implemented correctly.
8 No works that would involve excavation or any intrusion into the ground shall take place until a Written Scheme of Investigation for a programme of archaeological works has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and
i) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording ii) The programme for post investigation assessment iii) Provision to be made for the analysis of the site investigation and recording iv) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation v) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation vi) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation
Reason: To safeguard any archaeological interests on the site in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012.
9 No on-site works for the development hereby permitted shall commence until detailed proposals for the reinforcement of the highway verge at the A31/Marsh Bridge junction have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority (who shall consult with the local highway authority and the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport). The proposals shall be subject to road safety audit and risk assessment, and works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the agreed proposals.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the structural integrity of the highway.
10 Notwithstanding the submitted Traffic and Construction Plan, the development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan and programme of works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the County Highway Authority. The Plan shall include; i) construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) ii) vehicular routes iii) delivery hours and contractors' arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing, drainage and wheel wash facilities). iv) inspection of the highways serving the site jointly between the developer (or his contractor) and Dorset Highways prior to work commencing and at regular, agreed intervals during the construction phase so that any damage to the edges of the carriageway and verges can be identified and suitable remedial works (to be paid for by the developer) agreed. v) a scheme of signing of the heavy vehicle route to the site with advice/warning signs at appropriate points. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
11 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, all new cabling between the solar PV modules, the inverter and plant container building and connection to the electricity grid network shall be laid underground.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and landscape character of the area.
12 No external lighting or CCTV shall be installed on any part of the site or on any building or structure within the site, unless planning permission has been granted for it.
Reason: In the interests of the character of the countryside at night and to reduce light pollution.
Informatives:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; o offering a pre-application advice service, and o as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application:
o the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, o the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, o The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.
2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; o offering a pre-application advice service, and o as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to REFUSE the application
o The applicant and council have worked together to minimise the reasons for refusal.
3 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies ME1, ME6, ME8, HE1, HE2, HE3 and KS13 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy Pre-Submission Consultation 5.11.2012 to 21.12.2012 in the determination of the application
4 In the determination of the application, regard was had to;
i) The advice contained in the Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy publication dated July 2013.
ii) Natural England Technical Information Note TIN049: Agricultural Land Classification - protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land dated December 2012.
iii) Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Renewable Energy Strategy to 2020.
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: TRANS2 TRAN10 CSIDE1 LSCON2 DES6 DES8 NCON3
Item Number: 8. Ref: 3/13/0701/FUL
Proposal: Construct 4 houses, access road, parking & garaging (demolish existing dwelling) as amended by plans rec'd 25th September 2013 to show detached garage and levels
Site Address: 1 Middlehill Road, Colehill, Wimborne, for Harry J Palmer Holdings Ltd.
Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km Consultation Area Urban Areas LP
Site Notice exp : 21 September 2013 Advert expired: Nbr -Nfn expired: 12 September 2013
Colehill Parish Council Objection Comments: The proposal is an overdevelopment and an inappropriate use of the site.
The proposed access for the 4 properties is inadequate for the vehicles that will be accessing the site, including waste collection and other large vehicles.
The access is also close to a dangerous road junction in Colehill. At this junction the traffic is very heavy, vehicles are very often parked in Lonnen Road, close to this junction, and vehicles accessing the site will add to the congestion.
If permission is granted, the Council does not understand why the access for the site cannot be on Middlehill Road.
Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, Development Liaison Officer subject to the conditions.
Officers Report:
This application comes to committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval and the Parish Council has objected.
There have been two letters of objection from 5 Middlehill Road and 9 Park Homer Drive, and these raise concerns over additional traffic, overdevelopment, loss of privacy, and dominance of any new tree planting.
The application is in full and is for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of 4 detached houses with associated parking and turning areas. The
access to the site is to be from Lonnen Road with no vehicular access onto Middlehill Road (pedestrian access only). Bin storage areas for all dwellings will be to the rear of the parking spaces, with bins wheeled to the kerbside on refuse and recycling collection days.
Planning history
The site benefits from an outline planning permission to retain the dwelling at 1 Middlehill Road and build 2 detached houses with garaging and access onto Lonnen Road. This was granted under planning permission 3/12/0633/OUT and layout and access were approved.
The dwellings approved fronted Middlehill Road and had garaging at the rear with access onto Lonnen Road.
Planning Policy
Policies HODEV1, HODEV2, TRANS2, TRANS10, TRANS14 and NCON4 are relevant from the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 (EDLP), Policies KS4, HE2, ME1, ME2, KS11, KS12, and LN2 from the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy, and the policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The site
The site is in a prominent position and on the corner of Middlehill Road and Lonnen Road. It currently has a single detached house on it with vehicular access onto Lonnen Road.
Ground levels fall into the site from Middlehill Road and ground levels drop approximately 1m from pavement level here. There is a screen of coniferous trees on the boundary with 5 Middlehill Road, a hedge facing Lonnen Road with coniferous trees, and a hedge/fence on the Middlehill Road boundary.
The site is in the urban area and the new dwellings are liable for contributions for heathland and transportation.
Main issues
The main issues are the impact on the character of the area, impact on the occupants of adjacent dwellings, impact on highway safety, impact on protected heathlands and impact on highway infrastructure.
Impact on the character of the area
The proposed layout has three dwellings fronting Middlehill Road and the other facing Lonnen Road. All plots will have access to a single garage. Plots 1 and 4 will share double garage block on the site's boundary with 4 Lonnen Road.
A shared vehicular access will be from Lonnen Road and serve all the dwellings, with turning areas available from this. Each dwelling would have 2 parking spaces including the garaging.
The pattern of development in the immediate area is formed by terraced houses fronting the road and set back from it to the north east (4 to 10 Lonnen Road) and to the east (5 to 11 Middlehill Road). There is the Co-op store and Post Office to the north west with detached dwellings adjacent, and a wooded area to the south.
The scale and design of the proposed development is considered appropriate for its context and the dwellings have a traditional appearance with eaves at top of window level, chimneys and subservient elements. This should sit comfortably with the character of the immediate area.
The level of Lonnen Road falls to the north east and the dwelling at Plot 1 would be built some 250mm above the existing ground level of the site in this area and would have a ridge of 1.2m greater than the dwelling at 4 Lonnen Road. This would also be some 250mm below that of the proposed dwelling at Plot 2 (which replaces the existing dwelling).
There would be a noticeable gap between Plot 1 and 4 Lonnen Road, such that the proposed ridge height difference is considered acceptable, especially given that the ground levels fall across this frontage of the site.
The dwelling at Plot 2 would be orientated the same as the existing dwelling but would be closer to the road, leaving more space at the rear to enable room for Plot 1 and the access unlike the outline scheme which could only accommodate the access. The dwellings at Plots 3 and 4 would be set lower than Middlehill Road with steps for pedestrian access.
The garage block would be set close to the boundary with 4 Lonnen Road with a single parking space each side of it. This would have a pitched and gabled roof with a ridge height of 4.7m, with the roof pitching away from the boundary.
Some of the vegetation on the site's boundaries is to be removed as part of the proposal. The fir trees on the boundary with 5 Middlehill Road are to be removed and a new tree screen planted along this boundary. The oak and beech trees here are to be retained.
A 1m tall picket fence with hedge planting behind is proposed along the Middlehill Road boundary, and the existing hedge will be cut back to encourage growth and additional planting implemented to reinforce it to provide a continuous hedge. The hawthorn tree is shown for retention.
The hedge on the Lonnen Road boundary is to be cut back to provide visibility splays for the new access, and either retained or removed with a replacement hedge planted in its place. The cypress and sycamore trees on this boundary near the junction with Middlehill Road are to be removed as they are of poor quality. Replacement trees are advised as part of an approved landscaping scheme should planning permission be granted.
There is a 1.8m (approx.) high timber panel fence on the site's boundary with 4 Lonnen Road with a hedge of about 2m tall beyond (this hedge appears to be in the
control of 4 Lonnen Road and is not in the application site). Some hedge planting is proposed along this boundary to provide additional screening.
The proposal would bring about a housing density of 26 dwellings per hectare, and its layout, scale and appearance are appropriate for the area, and Policies HODEV1, HODEV2 and DES8 of the ERDLP are complied with, in addition to Policies LN2 and HE2 of the CS.
Although the density falls shy of the 30 dwellings per hectare advised by Policy LN2, it is considered that a higher density would conflict with the character and distinctiveness of the area and a lower density is therefore appropriate.
Impact on the occupants of adjacent dwellings
The proposal will generate some impact on the amenities of the occupants of 4 Lonnen Road and 5 Middlehill Road, and this would be manifested in overlooking, some shading, additional traffic movements and loss of boundary vegetation.
All the dwellings would overlook the rear garden of 4 Lonnen Road to varying degrees. Plot 1 would have an indirect view across the rear garden of No.4, and the other plots would look across the side boundary and have a more direct view.
The overlooking from Plots 2, 3 and 4 would be at between 9.5m and 21m, with the smaller distances between first floor windows and the boundary being towards the east of the site, where the dwellings are at a greater distance from the dwelling at 4 Lonnen Road, and the windows would look over the rear section of its rear garden.
The dwellings at Plots 2 and 4 have oriel windows to serve a bedroom in their projecting rear sections. These would have a triangular section with two sides projecting from the wall. One side would be obscure glazed and fixed closed and the other opening and clear glazed to enable an outlook.
These will focus any overlooking away from the most private outside areas of 4 Lonnen Road and also prevent significant overlooking of the rear garden of Plot 1. A condition would ensure their construction.
The dwellings are an acceptable distance from adjacent dwellings to prevent any adverse impact on the occupants of these dwellings. There would be some impact from the garage block, but given the roof pitches away from the boundary, and the garages would be set away from the fence boundary with the hedge beyond, and would be some 11.5m from the dwelling at 4 Lonnen Road. These impacts are not considered likely to result in significant harm to the amenities of the occupants of 4 Lonnen Road and 5 Middlehill Road and the proposal accords with Policy DES8 of the EDLP and Policy HE2 of the CS.
Impact on highway safety
The proposal will result in a new access onto Lonnen Road and is likely to result in greater numbers of vehicle movements onto this road and the adjacent roads.
Dorset County Council's Highway Engineer has advised he has no objection to the proposal and recommends several conditions to ensure the works are carried out to the correct standards.
The proposal accords with Policy TRANS2 and TRANS10 of the EDLP and Policy KS11 of the CS.
Impact on protected heathlands
The site lies between 400m and 5km from several Sites of Special Scientific Interest of international importance (SSSIs). Therefore an appropriate assessment under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is required to be undertaken by the Council as 'Competent Authority' to determine whether the proposal, in combination with other plans and projects, will have an adverse impact on the SSSIs.
Natural England has advised that on a site that lies between 400m and 5km from the SSSIs, an appropriate assessment may reasonably conclude that there would not be an adverse cumulative impact on the integrity of the SSSIs.
This is on the basis of the adopted Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2006 - 2014 which will provide mitigation against the impacts of new dwellings on the heathland. The Framework requires a financial contribution from the applicant to go towards funding the mitigation measures. Provided the applicant submits a Unilateral Obligation to pay the required contribution upon commencement of development, no objection would be raised with regard to the impact of the scheme on the SSSIs.
At the time of drafting the report there was no completed Unilateral Planning Obligation (UPO) to address this issue. However the applicant has made assurances that this will be submitted before the committee meeting. Provided the UPO is complete and signed, the proposal will be acceptable in terms of its impact on protected heathlands and would accord with Policy NCON4 of the EDLP.
Members will be updated on this issue at the meeting.
Impact on highway infrastructure
The site lies within the area covered by the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2. In this area, developments that generate additional vehicle trips are required to pay a sum to provide mitigation against the impact of increased vehicle trips.
At the time of drafting the report there was no completed Unilateral Planning Obligation (UPO) to address this issue. However the applicant has made assurances that this too will be submitted by the committee date.
Provided the UPO is complete and signed, the proposal will be acceptable in terms of its impact on transport infrastructure and would accord with the requirements of the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Supplementary Planning Guidance 2010, Policy TRANS14 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, and Policy KS11 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.
Members will be updated on this issue at the meeting.
Impact on biodiversity
The application has a negative bat and biodiversity survey and also a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) to enhance on-site biodiversity that has been endorsed by Dorset County Council's Natural Environment Team.
It is advised that the on-site biodiversity compensation and enhancement measures set out in the BMP are required to be put in place through condition. These are the provision of 2 bat tubes on the south or south west facing walls of each new dwelling.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
J Pittard Limited Drawing No. 1211 13 J Pittard Limited Drawing No. 1211 08 Rev A dated 25.9.2013 J Pittard Limited Drawing No. 1211 15 Rev A dated 30.9.2013 J Pittard Limited Drawing No. 1211 14 dated 25.9.2013 J Pittard Limited Drawing No. 1211 09 dated 17.7.2013 J Pittard Limited Drawing No. 1211 10 Rev A dated 18.7.2013 J Pittard Limited Drawing No. 1211 11 dated 18.7.2013 J Pittard Limited Drawing No. 1211 12 dated 18.7.2013
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building(s) is satisfactory.
4 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of some of the existing trees and shrubs, together with the means of enclosure proposed and
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 BS5837:2012 immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.
Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions, dormer windows, roof lights or garages shall be erected [other than those expressly authorised by this permission].
Reason: The site has limited outside amenity space and this aspect needs to be retained in the interests of the amenity of future occupants, in addition to ensuring no adverse overlooking between the plots and adjacent dwellings.
6 Notwithstanding the details shown on the section drawing number 1211/15A Plot 1 and the detached garages that are hereby permitted shall not be constructed until details of their finished floor level in relation to ordnance datum and a fixed datum point on or immediately adjacent to the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should it not be possible to reduce the levels of the garage then an alternative option would be to submit a reduced ridge height by changing the pitch of the garage roof. Thereafter Plot 1 and the garages shall be erected in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To minimise the impact of Plot 1 and the garaging on the amenities of the occupants of 4 Lonnen Road and in the interests of the visual amenities of the streetscene.
7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any re-enactment, when fitted and thereafter, the south east facing side of the oriel window in the rear of the dwelling at Plot 2, and the north east facing side of the oriel window in the rear of the dwelling at Plot 4 shall be fixed closed and obscure glazed to the maximum level of obscurity.
Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling at 4 Lonnen Road and the dwelling at Plot 1.
8 Prior to the occupation of each dwelling hereby permitted, two Schwegler 2FR Bat tubes shall be attached to or built into its walls adjacent to the underside of its eaves in accordance with Section G of the approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan signed by the applicant on the 9th May 2013. Thereafter these Bat tubes shall remain in situ in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To encourage bats to use the site in the interests of biodiversity.
9 Before the development is utilised the existing access point shall be permanently closed by extending the adjoining highway boundary hedge and removing any gates. The existing highway vehicular crossings shall be expunged and reinstated to a specification which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
10 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the turning and parking indicated on submitted documentation has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
11 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until provision has been made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
12 Before any other operations are commenced the visibility splay areas indicated on submitted documentation shall be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.6 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas shall thereafter shall be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
13 Before the development is commenced the proposed access crossing from the nearside edge of the carriageway to the boundary of the highway shall be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Informatives:
1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;
o offering a pre-application advice service, and o as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application:
o the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, o the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, o The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.
2 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies KS4, HE2, ME1, ME2, KS11, KS12, and LN2 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy Pre-Submission Consultation 5.11.2012 to 21.12.2012 in the determination of the application.
3 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council's Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
4 The applicant is advised that the proposed landscaping scheme whall make provision for the retention of planting of two trees close to the junction with Middlehill Road and Lonnen Road in addition to provision of hedging to both frontages.
5 The applicant is avised that it is recommended that the garage should either be set 0.5m lower than shown according to the land levels or shall have a combination of lower land levels and a shallower pitch of roof. Additionally Plot 1 would appear acceptable if set 0.3m lower into the ground to meet with the requirements of Condition 6 above.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: HODEV1 HODEV2 NCON4 DES8 TRANS2 TRAN10 TRAN14
Item Number: 9. Ref: 3/13/0745/FUL
Proposal: The construction of an agricultural anaerobic digestion system with associated access and storage.
Site Address: Land To The East Of North East Of Honeybrook Farm, Cranborne Road, Furzehill, for Sir Richard Glyn
Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Green Belt LP Groundwater Source Protection Zone Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites
Site Notice exp : 26 September 2013 Advert expired: Nbr -Nfn expired: 24 September 2013
Holt Parish Council No objection Comments:
Consultee Responses: Environment Agency We have no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions and informatives being included in any planning permission granted.
Environmental Permit The proposed development will require an Environmental Permit.
EDDC Public Health - I have viewed the documentation in relation to the Housing And Pollution above application, in particular the noise impact assessment.
The report indicates the installation will not cause a noise nuisance to dwellings. Therefore I recommend the following condition:
"The anaerobic digestion unit and related CHP units must be installed, and the noise mitigated, in accordance with the Noise Impact Assessment of Alan Saunders Associates Ref: AS6998. 130802.L1"
County Highways The County Highway Authority has no objection in Development Liaison Officer principle subject to precise details of the widening of the access to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority before development commences.
It is also requested that the an informative is issued with any forthcoming consent.
AONB Office (FAO Mr R The Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Burden) AONB has been established under the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act to conserve and enhance the outstanding natural beauty of this area. It is also recognised that in relation to their landscape characteristics and quality, National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are equally important aspects of the nation's heritage and environmental capital. The The AONB and its Management Plan are material considerations in planning. The National Planning Policy Framework states (paragraph 109) that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Furthermore it should be recognised that the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' does not apply within AONBs as confirmed by paragraph 14 footnote 9, due to other policies relating to AONBs elsewhere within the framework. It also states (paragraph 115) that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in these areas.
The application site for the bio-digester, shipping containers and concrete storage areas appears to be about 300 metres outside the AONB. However, the AONB extends to the west, north, and north-east of the site. The lagoon is a few metres from the AONB boundary and visually associated with the AONB. The AONB is very concerned about the use of farm land for growing material that is then fed into biodigesters to produce gas, heat and electricity when the primary purpose of farming is to grow food to feed the nation. We are well aware that the country is not self sufficient in food and the use of productive agricultural land for energy production purposes reduces further the capability to become selfsufficient in food. Schemes that do not take account of that full view are not truly sustainable and, along with the significant amounts of fossil fuel used in the transportation of the material that is fed into bio- digesters, the AONB is of the view that bio-digesters can be one of the least sustainable forms of renewable energy production.
Design and Access Statement In that context, I note that although manure is
emphasised in paragraph 2.9 of the supporting document no mention is made of an active dairy at Honeybrook or a significant beef unit or a piggery. Those activities would have slurry and manure to dispose of and if that were the situation a small biodigester might be an effective way of making use of those waste products. Nevertheless as it appears that the current proposal would primarily operate from green feed stocks grown on estate fields the system is using substantial quantities of green matter from fields that could otherwise be producing food directly or food for animals that are then part of the human food chain. The production of fertiliser (paragraph 2.10 of the D&AS) is clearly a subsidiary activity from the main purpose of energy generation; paragraph 2.10 is therefore particularly misleading when it suggests energy production is a side effect. The proposal is for a small power station in the countryside, albeit directly linked to buildings that have a tourism and leisure, rather than agricultural, function. Honeybrook Farm is widely marketed as a visitor attraction and, as the D&AS states, there is a café and restaurant. The AONB is also concerned that this is one of five 'similar schemes' for the estate which seems a significant over provision. I recall that some 18 months ago there was considerable discussion with the County Council with regard to a central anaerobic digestion scheme and at that stage it appeared that the capacity was well over that needed to serve the general day to day needs of the estate. The quantity of material to feed the digesters seems to be a fairly crucial question now as it was then. The quantity of manure and available green feed stock needed is not mentioned. This material cannot be used more than once. There is a real danger of the same resources being mistakenly included in more than one scheme. The demand for heat for buildings on site is only set out in terms of an overall figure rather then indicating the types of buildings and the actual demands. There are few dimensions in the text or on the plans so I assume that they will be similar to the High Lea proposal. The two main tanks would each be 13.5 metres in diameter with a height of about 3.5 metres above ground level whilst the shipping containers would be 12.2 metres long, 2.4 metres wide and some 2.7 metres high. The double stacked shipping containers would rise to 5.5 metres. I note that the Design and Access Statement refers to the stainless
steel flue being roughly 7 metres in height. In addition there would be a buffer tank of 7 metres in diameter and the reception tank 5 metres square. The form and character of these structures seem to be remarkably industrial and more than slightly insensitive to a rural situation. I strongly advise that a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal should be provided as this is a particularly industrial design and operation in a rural situation. I also note that there is a quite substantial lagoon proposed and that there could be significant impacts over a large area owing to the proposal to use gravity to distribute the material from the lagoon across the nearby fields. That could, of course, have implications for diffuse pollution to the River Allen. There does not appear to be any information about the way the digestate would be transported to the lagoon. The experience of AONB staff with other anaerobic digesters is that there is considerable road traffic at all times of the day and night bringing material from considerable distances. Not only does that use significant amounts of fossil fuels, and thereby reducing the sustainability of the scheme, but there is disturbance to the general tranquillity of the neighbourhood. That aspect could, fairly significantly, be mitigated by attaching a condition to any permission that may be granted limiting feed stocks to particular farm animal units and areas within the estate's ownership. I note that in the analysis of carbon dioxide savings the quantity saved by the use of the slurry from the anaerobic digester as a fertiliser is relatively small. That seems to undermine the argument in the earlier parts of the Design and Access Statement that the provision of a fertiliser is an important feature in the estate's consideration of renewable energy options. I note that in section 3, relating to the various schemes considered, the loss of food production is not taken into account when considering the benefits of an anaerobic digester. The AONB agrees that ground mounted solar PVs would be problematic. Whilst it appears to be argued that PVs only produce electricity the fact that electricity can produce heat seems to be overlooked. As I have mentioned the AONB was involved in pre- application discussions on a larger anaerobic digester for the estate and the AONB is therefore, disappointed that planning permission should have been granted elsewhere on the estate and within the AONB without the AONB having the opportunity to contribute to the
consideration of those proposals. In connection with the amount and scale of the development you may wish to require evidence, in the form of electricity bills, regarding the current level of electricity use at Honeybrook Farm. Obviously that is a good guide to the required output of the proposed scheme and hence whether or not it is larger than necessary. Paragraphs 3.36 - 3.52 refer to landscape and appearance. However there is no LVIA to independently assess the issues and provide confidence that identified impacts have been adequately handled. Furthermore I note that quite a lot of planting is indicated on Plan 12.25.2 and whilst percentages of particular species are indicated there is no indication of the actual numbers, the density of planting, or the size of the plants. Clearly that is insufficient information for a landscape scheme. Furthermore the scale of planting indicates that the site is exposed, and the features of the site - tanks, shipping containers, and concrete bunkers - are industrial in character and not appropriate to a large unspoilt location. A screening bank is mentioned in paragraph 3.41; details of the extent, configuration, height, materials and planting should be shown on a plan to enable you to assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of it. I also notice from that plan that a 2.4 metre high security fence is proposed, which will, despite being painted green, be an industrial feature. Moreover the considerable concrete block walls and structures being proposed (which appear to be at least 3 metres tall), will provide a solid and insensitive structures in a rural situation. I believe your Council has taken enforcement action against the location of shipping containers for storage in the neighbourhood. All these matters point towards the need for a LVIA and a properly prepared and specified landscape plan. The AONB disagrees with the contention in paragraphs 3.49 and 4.8 that the bio-digester and everything else constitute agricultural equipment. Quite clearly this is a small power station generation proposal and the appearance of it is distinctly industrial. The stacks of shipping containers, whilst they might have some attraction in terms of modularity and flexibility, are not appropriate for a permanent installation in a landscape that forms the setting of the AONB. Planning Statement The separate Planning Statement fundamentally disagrees with the other submitted documents as it
explicitly states the proposals will 'only utilise farm waste'. Maize, fodder beet and silage emphasised in the Design and Access Statement are clearly not waste. The application is, therefore, inconsistent. It is arguable, in 1.1 Background, whether the scale of the proposal is necessary for the purposes of agriculture, particularly as it is serving a leisure and tourism attraction. In addition it would appear the general permitted development relates to a building, and the tanks, lagoon and shipping containers appear to be rather different from the scope of 'a building' envisaged in the General Permitted Development Order. I note that no consideration is given to the cumulative impacts or outputs of the proposed five anaerobic bio- digester units. Similarly the cumulative impacts of running five of those, of the scale proposed, will take significant areas of land out of food production to provide the green material to feed the bio-digesters. That also appears not to have been explicitly set out. Nevertheless that is a crucial issue as it would not be sensible to approve more schemes than the estate can support from its output of manure and green crops. Indeed the use of green crops to feed bio- digesters will reduce the amount available to feed the animals and hence the amount of manure to put in the bio-digesters! Paragraph 4 again fundamentally contradicts the Design and Access Statement as it argues that the process is solely for the use of farm waste. Growing green crops to feed into an anaerobic bio- digester appears, by any definition, to be growing material with the prime purpose of using it to run a bio-digester, it is therefore not a waste product. The focus on 'existing farm waste' is emphasised again in paragraph 4.i and the somewhat emotive statement in the final sentence obviously overlooks the opportunities for the capture and utilisation of renewable energy at Honeybrook Farm through the installation of photovoltaic panels on the roofs of the contemporary farm buildings. Paragraph 4.ii indirectly makes a strong case for a LVIA, and that has not been provided. To argue exceptional circumstances for development in the Green Belt and close to the AONB without an appropriate and professionally prepared LVIA seems to make the application inadequate and incomplete. Again Section 4.iii fundamentally contradicts the Design and Access Statement which indicates there will be additional traffic, not just bringing additional material to the site but also daily attendance to the
equipment (D&AS paragraphs 4.5 - 4.7). As I am confident you will appreciate the references to the NPPF omit key aspects about the three economic, social, and environmental roles of sustainable development being delivered together. The proximity of the AONB is overlooked as is NPPF paragraph 109. The AONB Position Statement on Setting (http://www.ccwwdaonb.org.uk/docs/Pos3_Relevance. pdf )is relevant. It is also noticeable that emphasis is made within the Planning Statement that the proposed development is for farm diversification. The implication of 'diversification' is that it would be an additional commercial enterprise with a significant proportion of the energy being exported. That seems to be a very different process from one which offsets the existing energy use which is the argument in the Design and Access Statement for the proposal. Furthermore, as I have already commented, no consideration appears to have been given to the cumulative impacts, outputs, and consumption of crops to feed the proposed bio-digester over and above those two already consented and the other two are still in the planning stages. As you will have gathered the AONB has severe reservations about the proposal per se and the application, within the Green Belt and close to the AONB, as submitted. Had the AONB been consulted at an earlier stage we would have strongly advised the applicants to gain their renewable energy from roof mounted photovoltaic panels on the agricultural buildings. That would avoid the loss of productive farm land to the growing of material to feed the anaerobic digester and avoid altogether the fossil fuel costs involved in transporting the material to feed the anaerobic digester. If you are minded to progress with this application then the AONB strongly advises that an LVIA is independently produced by a qualified landscape architect and that the other details identified in this letter are provided and addressed. I hope these comments are helpful to you and the AONB would, of course, be happy to comment on any further information you may receive. Richard Burden For and on behalf of the CCWWD AONB Partnership
EDDC Tree Section Located within the application site's curtilage are mature trees that contribute to the area's rural character. However, these trees are not protected and due to their remote location and limited wider public
amenity value they do not merit becoming the subject of one.
In principle I therefore have no arboricultural objections.
However, having assessed the submitted plans it is evident that these trees could be adversely affected as a result of the installation of the pipework between the anaerobic digester and the lagoon. Should a trench be excavated for the pipework in close proximity to these trees it would be at the detriment to both their health and safe future retention. If it is the intention to retain these trees the applicant should consider obtaining independent arboricultural advice.
The proposed lagoon is also sited close to a belt of maturing trees. Again, it is therefore recommended that advice is sought to ensure that these trees are not adversely affected by its installation.
Finally, the prominent Oak adjacent to Cranborne Road and within the curtilage of Honeybrook Farm is located at a sufficient distance from the proposed pipework route where it crosses the highway to ensure that it would not be adversely affected.
Given the above, should you be minded to approve this application I recommend that the following informative note is included within the decision.
Informative note:
Construction of the lagoon and the pipework that links the proposed anaerobic digester to the lagoon could have an adverse impact on the health and safe long term retention of adjacent mature trees. Should it be the intention to retain these trees you should consider obtaining independent arboricultural advice in order to identify and implement means of construction that minimises harm to these trees.
Officers Report:
This application is brought before the Planning Committee as it does not fall within the scope of the Officer scheme of delegation; this is because the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
There has been one letter of objection from a neighbouring property regarding the potential noise generation from the Anaerobic Digester.
The application is for the construction of an Anaerobic Digester (AD) system, situated within a concrete based compound with 4x concrete feed storage clamps and a concrete apron base adjacent to the AD system, to allow vehicular access. In addition, the application includes a new gravel track to create access to the north of Clamp 1 and link to the existing track which runs alongside the proposed AD system, providing access to Green Farm.
The proposal also includes a covered lagoon around 700m north of the AD system which will be linked by pipeline to the proposed AD system.
The AD system is to be sited within the field adjacent to the junction of the B3078 Cranborne Road, and the access road running east, serving Green Farm. The concrete clamps and apron will be situated in the southern corner of the field and run alongside the track with a new access created onto the existing track in order to serve the AD system. The pipeline will traverse this field and run north around Little Scriven's Copse towards the proposed digestate lagoon which is located in the north western corner of this field.
The proposal and its background
Honeybrook Farm Park forms part of the Gaunts Estate, and the proposed AD system is designed to provide heat and electricity to the buildings of Honeybrook Farm, including a Grade II listed farmhouse, café, restaurant and several smaller buildings, which are currently powered by oil.
The Gaunts Estate intends to meet most of its power and heating needs from renewable energy provided by AD systems, whilst reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Initially a large AD system was proposed adjacent to the Cranborne Road to the north east of Hinton Parva. However this was discounted following negative feedback on the grounds of visual impact and traffic generation from district and county council officers during pre-application discussions.
To overcome these issues, the applicant has pursued a strategy to locate 5 separate AD systems around the estate, in order to minimise the visual impact as smaller developments may be more easily hidden in the landscape and attract less traffic movements that a single large development.
The current proposal is one of five projects on five separate sites on the estate, of which two remain to be submitted as planning applications in the future. Tthe proposal represents a scheme for renewable energy and farm diversification.
The site identified as the applicant’s preferred location for the Honeybrook AD system was the field to the south of the Farmhouse, however noise and ecological implications meant that this alternative site has been proposed.
The AD system consists of four shipping containers positioned on railway sleepers on a concrete base, which will be sited adjacent to an existing track and agricultural land. The system will be screened by proposed planting featuring Beech, Oak, Hawthorn and other indigenous species, in keeping with the existing hedgerows.
Three of the containers will be sited in a row with another container placed on top of the end container. The containers will be 2.7m tall (to include the sleepers), with the twin unit being 5.3m tall. The containers are 12.1m long x 2.4m wide. A stainless steel flue will project from the central container, with a 'reception tank' to take the feed to be processed to be sited adjacent to the containers. A buffer tank will also be situated within the concrete base next to the reception tank. There are two cylindrical tanks composed of insulated fiberglass, 2.5m tall to the top of the covers (and with 3m buried underground) meaning that they are the same height as the shipping containers.
The AD system will be fed with manure, silage, crop waste and slurry from the estate's farms. No feed will come from elsewhere.
Anaerobic digestion and power generation
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process in which naturally occurring bacteria are used to break down biological matter in a controlled environment, making biogas and digestate (solid and liquid residue).
The biogas produced is burnt to provide electricity and heat, and the system proposed (Combined Heat and power - CHP) will generate heat and electricity which will be used for Gaunts House and its outbuildings. Any surplus would be exported to the National Grid.
The digestate is a valuable fertiliser which can replace carbon-intensive artificial fertilisers. This is to be stored in the digestate lagoon, and spread on the estate's land.
The four areas marked as 'clamps' on the site layout plan are to be concrete holding areas for the storage of silage and feedstock awaiting input into the AD system.
Site context
The site is currently agricultural land, located within the designated South East Dorset Green Belt (GB), but outside of the AONB. The nearest dwellings are Springhill Cottages 320m to the North West of the AD system, and Green Farm which is 550m North of the concrete apron of the AD system and 320m to the South East of the digestate lagoon.
The site is screened along the B3078 Cranborne Road and the access track to Green Farm by existing established hedgerows and mature trees on its south and east boundaries.
Main impacts
The main impacts will be those on the Green Belt and nearby dwellings. Other impacts are on biodiversity, highway safety and trees.
Relevant Planning policy
The policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also applicable, in particular Section 9 (development in Green Belts), Section 10 (renewable and low carbon energy), and Section 11 (conserving and enhancing the natural environment).
Un- saved Policy CSIDE1 and Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 and Policies HE2, HE3 and PC3 of the emerging Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy (CS) are relevant. As a Local Plan policy that is not to be replaced or saved, Policy CSIDE1 does not hold as much weight as the others. Policy DES8 carries significant weight as it is to be replaced in the CS, as do the CS policies given that this plan is at an advanced stage of preparation.
Impact on the Green Belt
The government recognises that new buildings to house AD systems are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, and this is stated in Statutory Instrument No. 748: The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2012.
It is considered the proposal is an appropriate use in the Green Belt (GB) as it involves agriculture. However, it is inappropriate development as it is not for the erection of an agricultural building, but for the siting of containers and construction of slurry storage enclosures, which are not in any of the categories of development set out in the NPPF that are stated as being appropriate. Therefore the proposed development is by definition harmful to the GB and should only be approved in very special circumstances. This view was also taken for the previously approved schemes in the Gaunts Estate.
Very special circumstances:
Paragraph 91 of the NPPF advises that when located in the GB, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development, and in these cases, developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if these projects are to go ahead. Very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.
The proposal will re-use farm waste in a sustainable way, reduce waste and produce energy whilst reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The digestate produced will provide fertiliser for the estate and would be used instead of artificial fertilisers (which are carbon intensive to produce). This would have an environmental benefit for the soils and groundwater, and is a natural way to enrich the soil.
If the AD unit was to be housed in a building, it would have been considered as appropriate development in the Green Belt, and provided the impact of such a building was acceptable, the proposal would be acceptable in planning policy terms.
The proposed containers and any building of a suitable size to house them would have a similar impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and this is considered to be a factor that should be considered within the very special circumstances analysis.
The proposal can be viewed as an agricultural project that produces renewable energy and fertiliser. This energy is to be used to reduce the carbon emissions of Gaunts House and its surrounding buildings with the end aim that the carbon emissions are zero.
The applicant's agent estimates that the AD system will save 582 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide being emitted per year, which would arise from the current heating and electricity demands of the estate. Predicted electricity generation will be 788,400 kWh per year with 612,000 kWh of heat generation per year. This will be enough to represent 75% of the heating demand of Honeybrook Farm.
The UK is legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under The Climate Change Act 2008, and the proposal though small scale, would in conjunction with other wider renewable energy projects, contribute to this aim.
The National Waste Policy (NWP) provides a hierarchy of waste reduction, which starts with waste prevention, followed by waste re-use, recycling and energy recovery lower down and waste disposal at the bottom. The proposal therefore sits within the more favourable measures for waste disposal in the hierarchy.
The NWP also states that the government wishes to encourage local authorities and businesses to consider using AD. The Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (2012) states the government's commitment to substantially increasing energy from waste through AD which offers a local and environmentally sound solution to divert waste from landfill, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce renewable energy.
Dorset currently has a very small percentage of its energy produced from renewable sources, and is one of the poorest performing counties in this respect. The proposal would contribute positively to this.
The NPPF states that one of the Core Planning Principles is the encouragement of the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy), and this will support the transition to a low-carbon future in a changing climate.
The above factors are together considered to represent the very special circumstances required to outweigh the harm of the proposal that results from the inappropriateness of the development within the GB. The proposal complies with the policy in the NPPF accordingly.
Impact on nearby dwellings
The application site is not immediately adjacent to any dwellings. The nearest are those of Honeybrook Farm itself, Springhill Cottages 320m to the North West of the AD system, and Green Farm which is 550m North of the concrete apron of the AD system and 320m to the South East of the digestate lagoon.
There has been one letter of concern from the resident at Green Farm, who has concerns over the potential noise output from the motor unit. The Council's Public Health Officer has considered the submitted noise impact assessment and advises that a condition be imposed to require the AD and CHP units to be installed in accordance with the Alan Saunders Associates Noise Impact Assessment ref: AS6998.130802.L1. This should ensure that the amenities of the closest dwellings are not adversely affected by the proposal.
Impact on biodiversity
A bat and biodiversity survey accompanies the application, and this confirms that no evidence of any protected species was found.
A condition is suggested to require details of how the pipeline which links the AD system and slurry lagoon is to be laid, and these should be submitted and approved by the Council before work to lay the pipeline is started, to ensure minimum disturbance to surrounding trees and woodland.
The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal, subject to a condition for the requirement of a leak detection system to protect local water interests, and also informative notes with guidance on the need for an Environmental Permit, and also construction standards for the silage clamps and lagoon.
Impact on highway safety
The proposal will be accessed via the existing track to the south, which links the Cranborne Road to Green Farm. The existing field access from this track to the digester itself will be improved and existing planting trimmed back.
The material is to be fed into the AD unit by vehicles predominately using existing and proposed farm tracks within the estate, and avoiding the public road network.
Once constructed, traffic movements are likely to be focussed around a few weeks of the harvest, with crop cut-offs and silage being brought in. Manure will be brought in regularly (once every few months) by tractor along the tracks. The near constant operation of the AD unit will require daily access which is likely to necessitate a tractor coming on the site, which will use estate tracks and not public roads.
Dorset County Council's Transportation Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal in principle, with a condition to secure the widening of the access, and has requested that further information be submitted regarding this.
Impact on trees
Located within the application site's curtilage are mature trees that contribute to the area's rural character. However, these trees are not protected and due to their re- mote location and limited wider public amenity value they do not merit becoming the subject of one.
However, it is evident that these trees could be adversely affected as a result of the installation of the pipework between the anaerobic digester and the lagoon. Should a trench be excavated for the pipework in close proximity to these trees it would be at the detriment to both their health and safe future retention. If it is the intention to retain these trees the Arboricultural Officer has requested that the applicant consider obtaining independent arboricultural advice.
The proposed lagoon is also sited close to a belt of maturing trees. Again, it is there- fore recommended that advice is sought to ensure that these trees are not adversely affected by its installation, and an informative has been issued to direct this.
Finally, the prominent Oak adjacent to Cranborne Road and within the curtilage of Honeybrook Farm is located at a sufficient distance from the proposed pipework route where it crosses the highway to connect to Honeybrook, to ensure that it would not be adversely affected.
AONB
The site is located outside of the designated AONB area, and the impact on the AONB is therefore considered to be minimal, as the development is well screened by existing and new trees and landscaping, meaning that the proposal would not be prominent in the landscape.
No adverse impact on the AONB is expected or adverse impact on the visual amenities of the Green Belt, and the proposal accords with the NPPF in terms of these issues.
The AONB office were consulted, as the original application involved the use of crops grown on land within the AONB. Whilst they express concerns and would like to see a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal, as the site lies outside the AONB this is not considered to be reasonable.
The proposal is required for farm diversification and cannot be accommodated in an existing building, and would not harm the visual amenities of the countryside. Therefore it accords with Policy CSIDE1 of the EDLP, despite a small amount of weight being attached to this policy given it is not to be saved in the development plan.
Conclusion
The application site is considered to be appropriate for the proposal and no significant negative impact on the Green Belt is expected. It is considered that very special circumstances have been demonstrated to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt from the inappropriateness of the development, and the proposal will deliver much needed renewable energy whilst producing fertiliser for the estate. The proposal complies with planning policy and contributes to the government's renewable energy program and waste reduction strategy, and it is for these reasons that 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Existing Site Layout Plan- 12.25.1 Proposed Site Layout Plan- 12.25.2 Proposed Plans and Elevations- 12.25.3 Proposed Site Location Plan- 12.25.4 Proposed Plans and Elevations- 12.25.5 Site Location Blue Line- 890 Noise Impact Assessment of Alan Saunders Associates Ref: AS6998.130802.L1 Planning Statement - Proposed Anaerobic Digestion Unit and Storage Lagoon for Existing On-Farm Waste at Honeybrook, Gaunts Estate Design and Access Statement - Honeybrook Anaerobic Digester
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 The containers, reception tank and digestate buffer tank hereby approved shall be painted dark green (or another colour that may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) before they are brought on to the site, and shall remain this colour unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development on the landscape.
4 The development hereby permitted shall be installed and operated in accordance with the Noise Impact Assessment ref: AS6998.130802.L1, by Alan Saunders Associates Acoustics.
Reason: To minimise noise from the operation of the Anaerobic Digester and Combined Heat and Power Engine Units being experienced by dwellings in the vicinity of the site.
5 The Anaerobic Digestion facility hereby approved shall only be fed with manure (not human excrement); feedstuffs and any other materials that have been produced or grown on the Gaunts Estate, and shall not be fed with materials imported from elsewhere.
Reason: To minimise vehicular traffic on the local road network and in the interests of sustainability.
6 The hereby permitted storage lagoon shall have a leak detection system installed. The system shall be maintained to ensure the protection of local water interests.
Reason: The development is located in a source protection zone and is therefore necessary to protect controlled waters.
7 Before development commences a scheme showing the precise details of the widening of the access shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme should require approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be constructed before the approved use is commenced.
Reason: In the interests of road safety
Informatives:
1 In the determination of this application, regard was had to the policies and implications of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; o offering a pre-application advice service, and o as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application: o the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, o the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, o The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.
3 INFORMATIVE This activity will require a Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2012. The Environment Agency is required to consider all forms of pollution when issuing an environmental Permit. Odour can be classed as pollution if it causes offences to man's senses. If a permit is issued for this site, it will require the operator to take all appropriate measures to prevent or minimise the emission of offensive odours from the activity. However, this does not mean that there will be no odour from these activities.
NOTES TO APPLICANT It may be possible to apply for a standard rules permit SR2012no10. This is for 'On Farm' anaerobic digestion facility using farm wastes only, including use of the this standard rule set is effective from the date the Industrial Emissions Directive enabling legislation comes into force.
Permitted wastes would include wastes arising from on-farm, including dairies but do not include hazardous wastes. These rules are for facilities that have
an anaerobic digestion capacity of no more than 100 tonnes of waste or a combination of waste and non-waste in any one day.
These rules will allow the operator to carry out the anaerobic digestion of wastes and the combustion of the resultant biogas in gas engines. These rules allow the use of gas turbines, boilers, fuel cells and treatment and/or upgrading the biogas to biomethane. These standard rules do not allow any emission into surface waters or groundwater except clean water from roofs and parts of the site not used for waste activity including storage of wastes. They do not apply to installations with more than one operator.
The applicant can apply for a standard permit for on-farm anaerobic digestion facility if you can comply with the standard rules and meet the following criteria: o the quantity of waste or a combination of waste and non waste that can be accepted onto the site is no more than 100 tonnes per day o the storage and anaerobic digestion of farm wastes must be at least 200 metres away from the nearest sensitive receptor (typically a dwelling or workplace) in cases where the stack does not have an 'effective' stack height of 3 metres or more, or the stack is less than 7 metres in height. The activities are not carried out within: o a groundwater source protection zone 1, or if a source protection zone has not been defined then within 50 metres of any well, spring or borehole used for the supply of water for human consumption. This must include private water supplies. o 10 metres of any water course o The gas engine stack must be a minimum of 3 metres in height and must not be located within: o 200 metres of a European Site or a Site of Special Scientific Interest (excluding any site designated solely for geological features) o 200 metres of the nearest sensitive receptor in cases where the stack does not have an 'effective' stack height of 3 metres or more, or the stack is less than 7 metres in height If they cannot comply with the standard rules permit they would need to apply for a bespoke permit. We would advise that you contact the local environment management team to arrange a pre-application meeting to advise you on the permit and its requirements. As part of this process we can discuss odour management plans, technically competent manager requirements and also requirements of the environmental management systems you will need to have in place.
Please note that due to the groundwater sensitivities that there may be a requirement to bund the digester and therefore we recommend early contact with our Environment Management team.
Further information can be found at: http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/118404.aspx#Biological_treatment_ of_waste
4 INFORMATIVE The proposal includes new silage clamps and a new lagoon for the digestate liquid they must comply with the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil ) (England) Regulations 2010. To comply, it has to be built in accordance with British Standards set out in CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) Report 126.
The applicant must notify the Environment Agency in writing at least 14 days before construction. The appropriate forms are available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0810BSXI-e-e.pdf
Further guidance can be found at www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/118798.aspx where fact sheets for a range of different slurry storage options are available. The applicant is also advised to contact the local Environment Management team via 03708 506 506 for further guidance.
5 INFORMATIVE The site must be drained on a separate system with all clean surface water being kept separate from foul drainage. There must be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct to watercourses, ponds or lakes, or via soakaways/ditches.
Pollution Prevention during Construction Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to minimise the risks of pollution from the development. Such safeguards should cover: - the use of plant and machinery - oils/chemicals and materials - the use and routing of plant and vehicles - the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds - the control and removal of spoil and wastes. The applicant should refer to the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx
6 Informative: The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council's Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
Policy Considerations and Reasons 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 CSIDE1
Item Number: 10. Ref: 3/13/0752/FUL
Proposal: Removal of Condition 11 of Planning Permission 3/11/1226/FUL to Prevent Construction of the Footpath Site Address: 1 Marshfield, Colehill, Wimborne, for Mr S Craik
Constraints Bournemouth International Airport Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP Site Notice exp : 26 September 2013 Advert expired: Nbr -Nfn expired: 19 September 2013
Colehill Parish Council Objection- The construction of the footpath was a pre- Comments: condition when the plans were passed and the Council agrees with the neighbour's comments that a footpath is definitely required for the safety of the families living in the new houses. It is acknowledged that Colehill Lane has always been a very busy road and it is even busier at school times. Like the neighbours, the Council is in favour of finding an alternative surface to the footpath that is suitable to protect the trees, but also keeps pedestrians safe. The footpath would need an adequate means of preventing vehicles from being parked onto it.
Consultee Responses: County Highways The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION Development Liaison Officer to the proposal subject to the retention of condition 10 of Planning Permission 3/11/1226/FUL; in particular the visibility splays.
EDDC Tree Section Located on the site's western aspect and adjacent to the highway are many protected trees that make a significant contribution to the area's verdant character.
Condition 11, which was imposed by the inspector following the planning appeal, stated that a public footpath was to be constructed along the site's western frontage. However, the installation of this footpath would result in significant damage occurring to the rooting environments of many of the prominent protected trees located directly adjacent to the highway, which would be at the detriment to both their health and safe future retention.
In addition to this, a footpath is already present on the opposite side of the highway. I see little purpose in creating this new footpath given that it does not link directly to other footpaths. Also, the only people who are likely to use it are the future occupiers of the new
dwellings who would inevitably cross the road to the existing footpath should it be necessary.
Taking the above into consideration and the damage that would be caused as a result of the new footpath being installed, it is my recommendation that planning permission is granted to remove condition 11 as currently proposed.
Officers Report:
This application is brought before the Planning Committee at the request of Colehill Parish Council, because the Officers recommendation is at variance to the view of the Parish Council.
There have also been 4 letters of representation, all of which object to the proposal on grounds of the safety of pedestrians during busy periods in relation to local schools. A gravel path alternative to the proposed adopted footpath has also been suggested.
This proposal is to remove Condition 11 from the planning permission granted on appeal, reference 3/11/1226. This condition was imposed by the Inspector determining the appeal, according to the advice from Dorset County Council.
Condition 11 prevents development from taking place 'until a scheme showing the precise details of the kerbed footpath to be constructed along the western site frontage onto Colehill Lane have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The footway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any dwelling'.
The site lies within the urban area, and contains several mature trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order. Permission was granted on appeal by application ref: 3/11/1226 for the demolition of the four existing bungalows and the erection of four new detached four bedroomed houses, with garages. The proposal also included two new accesses off Colehill Lane and a kerbed footway along the western side frontage of the site. This was the revised submission of a refused scheme for five dwellings (Ref 11/1160) which was refused under delegated powers in January 2012.
In preparation for the discharging of conditions for this application, it has come to light that the footpath is unable to be built to an adoptable standard, which would include an excavated construction depth of 340mm, without causing unacceptable damage to the adjacent western line of trees, which would be contrary to policies DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.
The construction of a footpath within the highway or part of the highway would have to be to adoptable standards (for depth and construction). The proposed excavation for this footpath would take place immediately in the root zone adjacent to the trunks, and the tree officer has stated that this would result in significant damage occurring to the rooting environment of many of the prominent protected trees, which would be at the detriment to both their health and safe future retention.
There has been discussion between Dorset County Highways and the developer regarding proposed amendments to this scheme, including a non-adopted footpath, however this would mean that Dorset County Council would not be responsible for maintenance and that the footpath could potentially become enclosed in the future.
Dorset County Highways consider that the footpath under consideration would not provide a significant amenity to the public highway as there is a footpath present on the opposite side of the highway, and the proposed new footpath does not link directly to other paths. The proposed path would only serve the occupiers of the new dwellings, who would inevitably cross the road to use the existing footpaths which link to Colehill Lane and Smugglers Lane.
Dorset County Highways have considered the highways safety of the proposal and have no objection to the proposal, subject to the retention of Condition 10 with specific reference to the visibility splays. They consider that the visibility splays designed for the vehicular access will safeguard and provide inter-visibility for pedestrians and other road users.
It is therefore considered that Condition 11 of permission 3/11/1226 can be removed due to the impact of the construction of the footpath on the protected trees. Approval is recommended in compliance with policies DES8 and HE2 of the Local Plan and Core Strategy respectively.
Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1 The materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be: Brick - DR Buff Stock Cladding - Cedral boarding in colours C05 and C10 Render in Polar White Stonework to cills - Teccast Portland This development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the external appearance of the building is satisfactory.
2 Development shall not be occupied until details of hard and soft landscape works and boundary treatment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site.
3 The hard landscaping and boundary treatment shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of each dwelling and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site
4 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of soft landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of each dwelling or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation.
Reason: To protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site
5 The tree protection measures (including tree protection barriers, ground protection measures and engineered surfacing) as set out in the approved plan ('Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan - Rev.3') shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those area shall not be altered, not shall any excavation be made, without the written approval of the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that protected trees are not adversely affected as a result of the development.
6 The development shall be constructed in accordance with the 'No Dig' methodology set out in the approved plans ('Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan - Rev.3' & 'Arboricultural Implications Assessment in Construction Terms - Rev.3').
Reason: To ensure that protected trees are not adversely affected as a result of the development.
7 The permitted development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - 10804.SD200B - Proposed site plan; - 10804/SD201, SD202, SD203 & SD204 - Proposed floor plans; - 10804/SD205, SD206, SD207, SD208, SD209 & SD210 - Proposed elevations; - Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan - Rev 3 - Arboricultural Implications Assessment in Construction Terms - Rev 3
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and the interests of proper planning.
8 Before any dwelling is occupied the related access crossings from the nearside edge of the carriageway to the back edge of the footway, shall be laid out, constructed, hardened and surfaced to the specification of the local planning authority and shall be thereafter retained.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
9 Before any part of the development is occupied, the accesses, which shall have gradients not exceeding 1 in 15 for the first 4.5m, visibility splays, turning space and parking areas shall have been provided in accordance with the details show on approved plan 10804.SD200B and shall be thereafter retained.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
10 In accordance with the principles agreed in the Biodiversity Action Plan dated 25 April 2012, details of badger gates/opening to be provided in the boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the boundary treatment is erected in accordance with Condition 4). The gates/openings shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of protecting wildlife and their habitats that are legally protected species.
11 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Classes A, D, E, F and G of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order shall be carried out to or at the dwellings hereby permitted without the express permission of the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of controlling matters due to the balance of private space provision on this development.
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
3. IMPLICATIONS
Corporate Plan & Council Objectives 3.1. To ensure East Dorset’s natural and built environment is well managed.
Legal 3.2. The Council is the Local Planning Authority and has delegated to the Planning Committee the responsibility for determining planning applications in accordance with the provisions of the Local Plan, statutory and non-statutory guidance in the form of legislation and Planning Policy Statements.
Environmental 3.3. Any issues are contained within the body of this report.
Financial and Risk 3.4. The risk implications relate to the potential for judicial review or maladministration if the applications being reported have not been considered properly in a procedural sense or there is a substantial flaw in the consideration.
Equalities 3.5. Planning application determination requires a positive and questioning approach by the decision maker to equality matters. Where a particular issue requires a focused consideration there will be a reference in the particular report.
Background Papers: Planning application files relating to the above applications.