Everyone 7 128 1021 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 2 0 28, 29 rep_exe_IDsNo No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No NoEN1, EN2 28/03/ 2006 09:30: 01 C hief E xec uti ve Old 52 1 East Dorset District Council Planning Committee Agenda Item No 7 28th March, 2006 Public Report Schedule of Planning Applications Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any. Contributors: Chief Executive Contact Officer: Michael Hirsh, Head of Planning & Building Control Financial Implications: None Council Priorities: EN1 EN2 Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Head of Planning and Building Control's recommendation. 1. Applicable Lead Member Area(s) 1.1 Environment. 2. Crime and Disorder – Section 17 Implications 2.1 Where there is a specific crime and disorder matter that is a material planning consideration, it will form part of the report related to the particular application. 3. Introduction No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 1. 3/05/0165/FUL 55 And R/O 57 Oaks Drive, St.Leonards, Ringwood 2 2. 3/05/1566/FUL 36, 40, 42 And 44 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset 6 3. 3/05/1643/FUL Maypole Cottage, Front Lane, Sturminster Marshall 14 4. 3/05/1645/LBC Maypole Cottage, Front Lane, Sturminster Marshall 16 5. 3/05/1648/FUL 163 Phelipps Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 17 6. 3/05/1695/FUL Plot 9 And 10, Virginia Close, Verwood 21 7. 3/05/1707/FUL 99 Wareham Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 24 8. 3/06/0013/FUL 51-52 New Borough Road, Wimborne, Dorset 30 9. 3/06/0026/FUL Habgoods Yard, Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen 34 10. 3/06/0048/FUL Land Adj Thorpe House, Horton, Wimborne 36 11. 3/06/0060/FUL Horton And Chalbury Village Hall, Horton Road, Horton 44 12. 3/06/0061/CON Horton And Chalbury Village Hall, Horton Road, Horton 51 13. 3/06/0064/FUL Land At Church Hill, Verwood, Dorset 55 14. 3/06/0071/FUL 31 Ringwood Road, Verwood, Dorset 60 15. 3/06/0095/COU Barford Farm, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 61 16. 3/06/0111/FUL 28-29 Churchill Close, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 63 17. 3/06/0113/FUL Hill House, Sandleheath Road, Alderholt 66 18. 3/06/0130/FUL Rockstead, Bakers Lane, Holtwood 67 19. 3/06/0154/FUL Wimborne Kebab House, 17 Eastbrook Row, Crown Mead 69 20. 3/06/0192/FUL 13 Churchill Close, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 72 21. 3/06/0215/FUL Rushay House, Pentridge, Salisbury 74 22. 3/06/0233/FUL 63A Leigh Lane, Colehill, Wimborne 77 1 Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/05/0165/FUL Proposal: Erect 3 bungalows and 2 houses (Chalet Style) and construct vehicular access (demolish 55 Oaks Drive) and erect cat proof fence (As amended by plans and fence specification rec'd 06.10.2005). Site Address: 55 And R/O 57 Oaks Drive, St.Leonards, Ringwood, for Mr And Mrs Turner Constraints Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Urban Areas LP Site Notice expired: 6 March 2005 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 March 2005 St Leonards and St Ives Objection: Parish Comments: The proposal is within 400m of an SSSI. Comments received 30.03.05: Following your response to our request for clarification of SSSI and adjacent development of the land we have the following additional objections to make: The proposal will result in excessive development of the proposed site. Within 400m of SSSI area Concerned over the possible additional tree loss Unacceptable access on a bend Concerns over access to site from Oaks Drive. Consultee Responses: County Highways Development No objection CE1 CE5 CE4 CE7 CB7 I2 I4 Liaison Officer English Nature Objects to the proposed development pending consideration of an appropriate assessment. May be possible to withdraw objection subject to mitigation. EDDC Tree Section No objection. A full method statement is required. Neighbour Comments: The Owner/Occupier 42A Oaks Objection: Drive, St Leonards Tree issues Unnecessary development Highway concerns Access issues. Mr Richardson 66 Oaks Drive, Spoiling character of area. St Leonards Overloading infrastructure. Highway concerns. Mrs Mathieson 38 Oaks Drive, Highway concerns. St Leonards Nature concerns. Change character of area. 2 Mr Mathieson 38 Oaks Drive, Highway concerns. St Leonards Nature concerns. Change character of area. Mrs Rickson Willowdene, 43 Highway concerns. Oaks Drive Cause noise and disruption to frighten away the existing wildlife, adj SSSI. Mr And Mrs Bishton 28 Oaks Out of keeping with the character of the area. Drive, St Leonards Lack of privacy. Highway concerns. M A Wicken 35 Oaks Drive, St Objection: Leonards Highway concerns; Safety issues Out of character Contradictive to the deeds of our properties. Daphne Clarke 5 Rowan Close, Exceeds planning density for this area. St. Leonards Tree concerns. Loss of privacy and amenities. Highway concerns. Mr And Mrs Connor 59 Oaks Objection: Drive, St.Leonards/st.Ives Highway concerns Access issues Overdevelopment Out of character Drainage issues Nature conservation area Tree issues. comments rcvd 2.3.06 out of character previous comments still stand Mrs Everett 42 Oaks Drive, Out of character with area. St.Leonards/st.Ives Highway concerns. Nature concerns. Mr Gairn 3 Rowan Close, St. Exceeds planning density for this area. Leonards Tree concerns. Loss of privacy and amenities. Highway concerns. Mr And Mrs G Harris 53 Oaks No Objection Drive, St.Leonards/st.Ives Mrs North 1 Rowan Close, St Objection: Leonards Surface water, drainage and Sewer concerns Access issues Highway concerns Tree concerns. Officers Report: 3 This application is on the agenda because not all the concerns of the Parish Council are reflected in the recommendation, because there are more than four objections and by virtue of the issues involved in the consideration of this application following extensive negotiations. This application for five dwellings is on an almost triangular shaped site which has a narrow frontage whilst becoming increasingly wider towards the rear. The site comprises 55 Oaks Drive (which will be replaced) and the garden of 57 Oaks Drive. The access will be provided between the replaced No 55 and No 57. It lies on the outside of one of the bends in Oaks Drive. It shares some similarities with the site to the rear of 21-25 Oaks Drive which has been developed with bungalows following a successful appeal which resulted in the development being increased from the four granted by the Local Planning Authority to six bungalows. The particular difference, however, is that 23 Oaks Drive was demolished to make way for the driveway which successfully provided sufficient space to respect the amenities of the adjacent properties. The size and shape of the plot and the amount of boundary screening reduces the impact on the amenities of occupiers of adjacent dwellings. It also results in the development of the site having a relatively limited impact on the street scene and the character of the area. A 2.5 m. cat-proof fence is proposed along the northern and western boundaries of the site. This is proposed because the site is adjacent to Lions Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which has a European designation with the objective of overcoming the almost inevitable objection of English Nature to residential development in close proximity to a SSSI. However, it only bounds the application site and cats could gain access to the SSSI from the adjacent properties. Ultra-sonic cat scarers are proposed at the extremities of the fence but it is not known how efficient they are. In these circumstances there is still an objection from English Nature. A contribution of £5000 is being offered to the Herpetological Conservation Trust to add heathland adjacent to the SSSI. However, the applicant has not secured the necessary agreement of these landowners to achieve this intention as a means of mitigating the impact of the development. A local resident has suggested that there are badgers in the vicinity of the application site and the need for a badger survey to be carried out by the applicant has been identified. This type of backland development does pose problems which are particularly related to the impact on the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings as a result of the use of the access and the physical impact on the outlook from the existing dwellings on the road frontage. In this case the existing vegetation adjacent to the access in the front garden of No. 57 will be retained and the replacement dwelling on the site of No 55 is designed so that its occupiers would not be unduly affected by use of the access. The concerns of local residents are readily understood. Notwithstanding some recent encouraging dismissals of backland development appeals elsewhere in the district, the above mentioned decision and also an allowed appeal for two bungalows to the rear of Nos. 24-26 Oaks Drive does leave the Authority in a position on this particular site where a refusal of planning permission for reasons not connected to nature conservation matters would be difficult to justify. Notwithstanding the measures being proposed to address the nature conservation issues they do not overcome the concerns of English Nature and a refusal of planning permission is therefore recommended. 4 Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):- Reasons:- 1 The site lies close to the Lions Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).