PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 November 2015

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Purpose of Report: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.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 Management Manager’s recommendation.

Portfolio Holder: Councillor M Dyer (Environment)

Wards: Council-wide

Contact Officer: Giles Moir, Development Management Manager

2. APPLICATION SCHEDULE

No. Application No. Site Address Pg.1. 3/15/0301/FUL 58 Beaucroft Lane, Colehill, Wimborne 182. 3/15/0829/FUL Land End Of Couch Road, Downside, All Hallows 323. 3/15/0983/HOU 5 Golf Links Road, Ferndown, Dorset 454. 3/15/1029/FUL Forest Edge Nurseries, Verwood Road, Woodlands 51

Item Number 1 Ref: 3/15/0301/FUL

Proposal: Demolition of existing house, erect 2 detached dwellings with garaging and parking, alteration to access and create new access. Alteration to boundary treatment and alteration to access road as amended by plans received 20/7/2015 to lower the new dwellings; reduce their scale; reduce ridges of garages; increase separation distances and plans rec'd 24/9/2015 to revise fenestration on dwelling at Plot 2.

Site Address:

58 Beaucroft Lane, Colehill, Wimborne, for Fox Homes Ltd

Site Notice expired: 11 June 2015Nbr-Nfn expired: 24 August 2015

Parish Comments: No Objection to amended plans. The Council would like to ensure that any damage to the road surface during construction is minimal.

Consultee Responses:EDDC Policy Planning An affordable housing contribution is not justified.

County Highways Development Liaison Officer

I refer to the above planning application received on 03/08/15

The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following conditions;

ACC05 - Access crossingBefore the development is commenced the first 10 metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, south west from Beaucroft Lane, 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.

TPK02 -Turning and parkingThe development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 14-888-003-A 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.

IFN02 - Dorset HighwaysNOTE: 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. They can be contacted by telephone at Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at dorsetdirect@dorsetcc.gov.uk, or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

EDDC Tree Section RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED PLANS

The application seeks consent to demolish the existing building and in its place construct two 5 bed detached units with double garage and parking. The plans submitted show the units have now been modified in size, which is welcomed although my comments remain unchanged form those previously made.

The site runs downhill from NE to SW with a level drop in excess of 5m.

As part of the submitted application is a tree survey/report compiled by Astill Treecare (ref: ATC/TS/AIA/AMS/2015/313 and dated March 2015. Within that document, a number of tree constraints have been identified, those being;

A Horse Chestnut located within the grounds of 60 Beaucroft Lane, immediately adjacent to its northern boundary referenced T509B and an Oak T506 again located off site on land adjacent to the sites front boundary.

The Oak tree is protected via TPO CO/29 and the Horse Chestnut by the newly made TPO reference CO/174.

It is proposed to undertake crown lifting works to the Oak as referenced in the submitted Astill report would be acceptable and will have no detrimental effect upon the tree.

The main issue from a tree perspective revolves around the Horse Chestnut T509B

Plot 2 stands within the RPA of the Chestnut T509B and as specified within the Astill report will require significant levels of ground protection in an attempt to alleviate potential ground compaction and contamination issues arising from the construction process.

For such levels of ground protection to be effective the specification will require up grading from that specified in the Astill report section 5.9 to a more robust specification such as to ensure the protection of the exposed rooting zone for the full duration of the build as well as continued site monitoring. This can be addressed and agreed at a pre-commencement site meeting.

The area within the RPA of the Chestnut must remain free of any services including rain water run-off and as such the location of all underground services must be identified and agreed prior to commencement of the any works on site.

Recommendation: No Objection subject to conditions

Prior to commencement of works (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the final ground protection specification in the area of tree T509B and frequency of the site monitoring by the Arboricultural consultant and any other business as required. The protection of the trees shall be in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan, reference ATC/2015/313 dated the 09.03.2015 and compiled by Astill Treecare Ltd. In addition to the ground protection measures, protective fencing shall be erected in accordance with BS5837:2012 fig.2 and it shall be positioned as shown on the Tree Protection Plan. All tree protection measure are 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.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy HE-2 and HE-3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Councils Core Strategy

Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development shall commence on site until a construction method statement for the proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development shall then be erected 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 erection.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy HE-2 and HE-3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Councils Core Strategy

Prior to commencement of works (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) a plan showing all service routes, including the position of soakaways outside of the identified Root Protection Areas shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the LPA.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy HE-2 and HE-3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Councils Core Strategy

Officers Report:

Following Members’ resolution to grant planning permission on the 13th October 2015, this application returns to committee to clarify information presented to Members on one slide during the Officer Presentation at Planning Committee, regarding the position of windows in the west elevation of 60 Beaucroft Lane, in relation to the boundary with the application site.

Officers based the information presented on an approved plan for development at No.60. However, on a further inspection of this property, it is evident that there are windows on the west side of No.60. The application is now presented for re-consideration with this aspect clarified.

The following report has been redrafted to reflect this.

This application originally came to committee as in excess of 5 representations of objection had been received (15 letters). The Officer recommendation remains for approval. The Parish Council has not objected to the amended plans now for consideration.

The issues raised by the objectors are; loss of privacy; overdevelopment; additional traffic; road and pedestrian safety; out of scale and out of keeping with adjacent properties; will dominate lane; undesirable precedent if permitted; rear of dwellings exceed rear building line; pressure on sewer; increased surface water runoff; adverse impact in views from across valley; impact on existing trees; reduced light to proposed dwellings from existing trees; impact on biodiversity; light pollution; noise and disturbance from increased traffic; loss of garden land; submitted street scene

drawing inaccurate as it shows 2 trees that are not there; adverse impact on character of area; inappropriate design due to flat roof; resurfacing of track should be required outside 58 to 62 Beaucroft Lane to prevent gravel being deposited onto Beaucroft Lane; parking issues for site workers if permission granted.

The proposal

This is a full application to demolish the existing detached bungalow with accommodation in its roof and subdivide the plot to accommodate 2 detached split level houses with two storeys facing Beaucroft Lane and three storeys at the rear.

The plans have been amended following concerns by the case officer and the scale of the dwellings reduced. It is on this basis that the proposal is presented.

Plot 1 would share a boundary with 54 Beaucroft Lane and Plot 2 would share a boundary with 60 Beaucroft Lane. Plot 2 will have an attached double garage with a detached double garage at Plot 1. Both garages would be at the front of the plots with the dwellings behind them.

Two vehicular accesses are shown onto the track that provides existing access onto Beaucroft Lane and each dwelling would have space to park vehicles off the track.

Main issues

The main issues are impact on the character and appearance of the area; impact on the amenity of the occupants of adjacent properties; impact on road safety; impact on heathland; impact on biodiversity; impact on surface water runoff and impact on trees.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area

Split-level dwellings are proposed to take advantage of the decreasing levels at the rear of the site, which fall some 5m from the track to the site's rear boundary.

Ground levels also fall across the site's frontage, although much less severely than at the rear. This has resulted in the dwelling at Plot 1 being set at a higher level (1600mm) than the dwelling at Plot 2, so that the dwellings will step down the hill, and the submitted street scene drawing shows this. The ridge of the dwelling at Plot 1 will be considerably higher than the ridge of No.60. This relationship is considered acceptable given the separation distance between the dwellings, together with the design to pitch the roof away from No.60, and will allow an appropriate gap and visual relationship.

The space between the dwellings and the adjacent dwellings at 54 and 60 Beaucroft Lane is similar to other gaps between properties in Beaucroft Lane, although space between dwellings varies in the Lane.

The scale of the 2 dwellings is appropriate and they will sit on the plot comfortably with acceptable spaces between them to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. The design is high quality and will add interest to the Lane, replacing what is an unassuming detached dwelling.

The proposed dwellings are set behind the adjoining dwellings and will project further to the rear than No.54. This siting is considered acceptable, given it is similar to the position of the dwellings in their plots at 60 and 62 Beaucroft Lane to the SE.

There is adequate space for meaningful planting on the site's frontage and this will add to the setting of the area.

No adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area is foreseen and Policy HE2 of the Core Strategy is complied with.

Impact on the amenity of the occupants of adjacent properties

54 Beaucroft Lane

Plot 1 lies immediately to the SE of this property. The dwelling proposed will be visible from the dwelling and rear garden of No.54 and there would be some impact on the amenity of the occupants of this property accordingly.

The site's boundary with No.54 is formed by tall hedging/vegetation and if this is retained it would provide some screening of the side elevation of the new house for the occupants of No.54. A landscaping scheme is suggested to require by condition what happens on this boundary, together with a condition to require a fence to be erected along it of a height and in a position to be agreed by the Council before the dwelling is occupied (Condition 5). This will ensure that the overlooking from the ground floor windows in the NW side of the new dwelling is not significant.

There are first and second floor windows on the NW elevation. A condition is suggested to require the single first floor window to an ensuite bathroom to be obscure glazed with fixed lower section and high level sill for any opening section (Condition 6). A condition will also require the roof lights in the second floor to have high level sills.

In this way there would be no overlooking of the rear garden and dwelling at 54 Beaucroft Lane during the day to day use of the proposed dwelling.

The new dwelling would have some impact on the outlook from the rear of No.54, given its projection into the plot beyond the rear of No.54. The space between the rear elevation of the dwelling at No.54 and the nearest part of the proposed house is sufficient to prevent significant impact on outlook, and this is helped by the existing detached double garage at No.54 which would be between the new dwelling and No.54.

The new dwelling would be to the SE of No.54 and there may be some reduction in sunlight to the rear garden of No.54 from the new dwelling. However, this is not expected to be significant given the relationship and distance between the flank of the new dwelling and the rear of the house at No.54. Additionally the lower ground levels of the site compared with No.54 will reduce this impact, as will the design to pitch the roof away from the boundary.

No demonstrable harm is considered likely to result for the occupants of 54 Beaucroft Lane for the above reasons.

60 Beaucroft Lane

No.60 was originally orientated with its main rear facing elevation to the south. This has changed with the subdivision of the plot and the development of a detached house to the SE at 62 Beaucroft Lane, where alterations were made to No.60 to alter its outlook so that it faced West and South

This has resulted in the area immediately to the west of No.60, adjacent to No. 58, being used for outdoor amenity, in addition to that to the south. This area is overlooked by an elevated terrace on the West side of No.60 with two living room windows onto it, giving views to the south-west.

There are also 2 windows which serve bedrooms located between approximately 3m and 5m (at their closest points) from the boundary with No.58, and a glazed sided Utility Room which projects outward and has windows on all three sides with a door onto the Terrace. The nearest part of this is 5.5m from the boundary with No. 58.

The windows in the west elevation of No.60 will look obliquely at the side (SE) boundary of the application site. This boundary is formed by a tall hedge, trees and bushes. These windows also look obliquely at a section of banking given the application site is at a higher level than No.60.

Amended plans have been received to show a 2m high fence on the boundary between the proposed dwelling and bungalow at No.60. These show an obscure glazed and limited opening window at first floor, and high level roof lights at second floor which would prevent adverse overlooking of the garden and the dwelling at No.60 from the SE elevation of the dwelling at Plot 2. These plans supersede those originally submitted which showed more first floor window openings on this side, and will ensure adverse overlooking is prevented.

1.8m high opaque screens on the side (SE) of the 2 rear terraces will also prevent overlooking, and Conditions 8,9,10 and 11 as suggested would secure this mitigation.

The proposal would result in some impact on the outlook from the bedroom and utility room windows in the west side of the bungalow at No.60. However, given the existing outlook from these bedroom windows is into a low bank and dense and tall vegetation, it is considered the proposed development would not have a significant effect on the outlook from these windows.

The dwelling at Plot 2 would be apparent from the west part of the rear garden of No.60 and would be at a higher level than this area, and there would be an impact on the outlook to the north from this part of the garden. However, there is a large horse chesnut tree on the site's boundary with No.60 together with other vegetation and this shades its garden.

Given the orientation of the site in relation to the sun (it is to the NW of No.60) and the presence of this tree and the tall hedging on the NW boundary of the plot at

No.60, there is expected to be no loss of sunlight to the rear garden and dwelling at No.60, and little additional shading.

The impacts on the adjacent properties are not considered likely to be significant, and the proposal accords with Policy HE2 (design of new development) of the Core Strategy

Impact on road safety

The two new accesses proposed will join the unmade track that joins the metalled part of Beaucroft Lane to the north and south. This track is lightly trafficked and Dorset County Highways has raised no objection.

On-site parking provision is acceptable with at least 4 spaces per dwelling (to include inside the garages). No adverse impact on road safety is expected and the proposal accords with Policy KS11 (Transport and Development) and KS12 (Parking Provision).

Impact on heathland

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 writing, the applicant has agreed to pay and submit the Unilateral Undertaking to meet the requirements of the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework before the committee meeting. Provided the Unilateral and payment are received, this will address this issue and the proposal will be acceptable in terms of its impact on protected heathlands and would accord with Policy ME2 of the Core Strategy. Members will be updated at the meeting.

Impact on biodiversity

A Negative Bat Survey has been submitted that states no bats were present when the site was surveyed for bats. This accords with the Dorset Biodiversity Protocol and Policy ME1 (Safeguarding Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the Core Strategy.

Impact on surface water runoff

Concern over surface water runoff from the site has been raised by a local resident as the track outside the site suffers from noticeable surface water runoff during periods of heavy rain, which pushes gravel onto the metalled section of Beaucroft Lane to the SW.

To ensure that surface water drains effectively from the proposed development, it is advised that a condition be imposed to require a surface water drainage scheme to be approved by the Council before development commences. This is set out in Condition 12.

Impact on trees

The Council's Tree Officer has identified that the proposal has implications for the health of a horse chesnut tree which is on the boundary with 60 Beaucroft Lane to the rear of the proposed dwellings.

He has raised no objection, subject to conditions to secure suitable ground protection measures during the construction process, and ensure service routes (drainage, electricity, gas) do not damage the rooting environment of this and the other trees to be retained.

With these conditions in place, it is considered that no adverse impact on the protected tree will result and the proposal accords with Policy HE2 of the Core Strategy.

Provision of affordable housing

At the time of submission, the threshold for providing affordable housing was 10 dwellings. However following a recent High Court judgement, this has been reduced to 1. Consequently the applicant has been asked to provide an affordable housing contribution in accordance with Policy LN3 (Provision of Affordable Housing) of the Core Strategy.

The National Planning Policy Guidance at paragraph 19 states: “In making decisions, the local planning authority will need to understand the impact of planning obligations on the proposal. Where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations. This is particularly relevant for affordable housing contributions which are often the largest single item sought on housing developments. These contributions should not be sought without regard to individual scheme viability. The financial viability of the individual scheme should be carefully considered in line with the principles in this guidance.”

Following this guidance, a viability statement was submitted and the Council's Planning Policy Manager has advised that on the basis of the figures included in this statement, an affordable housing contribution is not justified. This is because a profit

of 20% is accepted by National Planning Policy Guidance to be a reasonable profit for developments to be worthwhile building. This proposal would secure a 17.5% profit before the affordable housing contribution is deducted. If the contribution for affordable housing is required then the profit dips to 11.5%. It is accepted that in these circumstances it would be unviable to deliver the scheme if a contribution is required for affordable housing.

Policy LN3 of the Core Strategy is therefore accorded with in this instance without provision of an affordable housing contribution.

Conclusion

The proposal will increase the number of dwellings on the site, but retain the overall character of the area with a high quality design which will add visual interest to this part of Beaucroft Lane.

Although it is recognised that there will be some impact on the amenities of the occupants of the immediately adjacent dwellings, this is not considered likely to be significant given the measures required by the suggested conditions.

Approval is recommended.

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:

Scott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-002-A: Block PlanScott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-003-A: Site LayoutScott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-004-A: Plot 1 Floor PlansScott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-005-A: Plot 1 ElevationsScott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-006-A: Plot 1 garage elevationsScott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-007-A: Plot 2 Floor PlansScott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-008-A: Plot 2 ElevationsScott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-009-A: Street sceneScott Worsfold Associates Drawing No.14-888-010-A: Street scene comparison (with originally submitted design)

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

3 Prior to their use in the building, details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter 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 existing trees and shrubs thereon, together with the means of enclosure proposed and to be retained within and 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 Before the dwelling at Plot 1 is occupied, a fence of a height and in a position to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be erected along the site's NW (side) boundary with 54 Beaucroft Lane. Thereafter the fence shall be retained.

Reason: To secure the privacy of the occupants of 54 Beaucroft Lane and future occupants of the dwelling at Plot 1.

6 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the first floor windows serving an ensuite in the side (north west) elevation and a bathroom in the side (SE) of the dwelling at Plot 1 shall be glazed with obscure glass to Level 5 Obscurity. These windows shall either be fixed closed or have a top opening fanlight with the sill of the opening part at least 1700mm above floor level and the lower section fixed shut.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the occupants of the adjoining property at 54 Beaucroft Lane and the dwelling at Plot 2.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any subsequent re-enactment, the roof lights proposed for the side elevations (NW and SE) of the dwelling at Plot 1 shall be installed with their sills at or above 1700mm above floor level of the rooms they serve.Reason: To preserve the privacy of occupants of the adjoining properties.

8 Before occupation of the dwellings, 1800mm high obscure or opaque screens shall be installed on both sides (NW and SE) of the balconies at the rear of both dwellings. Details of these shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before they are constructed and thereafter they shall be retained.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the occupants of the adjoining properties at 54 and 60 Beaucroft Lane and future occupants of both dwellings.

9 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the first floor window serving a bathroom and the ground floor window serving a WC in the side (SE) elevation of the dwelling at Plot 2 shall be glazed with obscure glass to Level 5 Obscurity. These windows shall either be fixed closed or have a top opening fanlight with the sill of the opening part at least 1700mm above floor level and the lower section fixed shut.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the occupants of the adjoining property at 60 Beaucroft Lane

10 Before occupation of the dwelling at Plot 2, an 1800mm high obscure or opaque screen shall be installed on the side SE of both the rear ground floor terraces at Plot 2. Details of these shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before they are constructed and thereafter they shall be retained.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the occupants of the adjoining property at 60 Beaucroft Lane, given the relationship between the terraces and the amenity space at 60 Beaucroft Lane.

11 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling at Plot 2, a 2m high fence shall be erected along the SE site boundary with 60 Beaucroft Lane in a position to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter this fence shall be retained at this height unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To preserve the privacy of the occupants of 60 Beaucroft Lane.

12 Prior to the commencement of development, a surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme and retained and maintained to ensure effective surface water attenuation thereafter. No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved scheme is operational.

Reason: To provide for the effective disposal of surface water from the development.

13 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme for the reduction of carbon emissions shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme should include,

where practical, water and energy efficiency measures, use of renewable and low impact materials, incorporation of sustainable drainage, on-site renewable energy provision and low carbon energy sources.

Reason: To help meet the UK's carbon emissions targets and comply with Policy ME3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.

14 Prior to commencement of works (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the final ground protection specification in the area of tree T509B and frequency of the site monitoring by the Arboricultural consultant and any other business as required. The protection of the trees shall be in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan, reference ATC/2015/313 dated the 09.03.2015 and compiled by Astill Treecare Ltd. In addition to the ground protection measures, protective fencing shall be erected in accordance with BS5837:2012 fig.2 and it shall be positioned as shown on the Tree Protection Plan. All tree protection measure are 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.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy HE-2 and HE-3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Councils Core Strategy

15. Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development shall commence on site until a construction method statement for the proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority including provision within the site for site operatives parking. The development shall then be erected 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 erection.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy HE-2 and HE-3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Councils Core Strategy and to limit disruption to traffic in Beaucroft Lane.

16 Prior to commencement of works (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) a plan showing all service routes, including the position of soakaways outside of the identified Root Protection Areas shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the LPA.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy HE-2 and HE-3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Councils Core Strategy

17 Before the development is commenced the first 10 metres of the access crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, south west from Beaucroft Lane, 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.

18 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 14-888-003-A has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Informatives:

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

identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

2 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and national Planning Practice Guidance 2014 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. They can be contacted by telephone at Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at dorsetdirect@dorsetcc.gov.uk, 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 Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy 2014 were taken into account. Saved policies within the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, were also taken into account. These include specifically the following policies: KS1 KS4 KS11 KS12 ME1 ME2 ME3 HE2 LN3

Item Number 2 Ref: 3/15/0829/FUL

Proposal: The development of a shared electronic communications base station comprising a 30m lattice tower, six antennae, two 0.6m DIA dishes and six ground based radio equipment cabinets installed within a fenced compound

Site Address:

Land End Of Couch Road, Downside, All Hallows, for Arqiva Ltd

Site Notice expired: 18 September, 2015

Parish Comments: Support - this government promoted installation meets the requirements of National Planning Policy for sustainable rural communities

Consultee Responses:County Highways Development Liaison Officer

3/15/0829/FUL - Land End Of Couch Road, Downside, All Hallows

I refer to the above planning application received on 19/08/15

The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following conditions;

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:o 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.

The site affects a Public-Right-of-Way which must not be obstructed or encroached upon, the surface damaged or made dangerous to ensure the safe passage for the public at all times.Reason: In the interests of road safety.

County Archaeological Officer

Thanks for this consultation concerning the archaeological implications of this propose development.

I am not aware of any particular archaeological reasons for concern.

AONB Office (FAO Mr R Burden)

Thank you for consulting the AONB on this application. As you will doubtless be aware the AONB was contacted last year about a proposal for a 30m mast at this location. You can see that considerable detail was provided in my email of the 4th November 2014 when I made the strong recommendation that a visual impact appraisal carried out by a chartered landscape architect would be needed for a proposal of this magnitude, in this elevated location within a nationally important and nationally designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I see that the applicant has chosen to ignore that advice. You will also see that in the further email exchange dated the 8th June details in connection with colour were provided and, again, that advice seems to have been ignored. You will see that I reiterated that the AONB would 'want the LVIA to be carried out by experienced and qualified landscape architect'. I have not been able to find an LVIA amongst the submitted material on your web site.

The Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs 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 which straddles three County, one Unitary and five District councils. It is clear from the Act, subsequent government sponsored reports, and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 that natural beauty includes wildlife, scientific, and cultural heritage. 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 assets and environmental capital. The AONB Management Plan is a statutory document that is approved by the Secretary of State and is adopted by the constituent councils. It sets out the Local Authorities' Objectives and Policies for this nationally important area. The national Planning Practice Guidance [Natural Environment paragraph 004] confirms that 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 which include AONBs. Furthermore it should be recognised that the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' does not automatically 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 location is in the Stour and Avon Tributary Valleys landscape character area. Greater details of the landscape, buildings and settlement characteristics can be found in the Landscape Character Assessment 2003. That document should be available in your office, and it can be viewed in FULL on our web site. More detailed information in connection with AONB matters can be found on the AONB web site where there is not only the adopted AONB Management Plan but also Position Statements and Good Practice Notes (Planning Related Publications). In particular when considering construction within the AONB I would draw attention to our Good Practice Note on Colour in the Countryside

The proposed location is in an elevated position, within a Capability Brown landscape, within a nationally designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Paragraph 115 of NPPF therefore applies. The adopted AONB Management Plan indicates that visually intrusive masts which impair significant views are not appropriate. Clearly no attempts have been made by the applicants to integrate this proposal with the sensitive landscape of the AONB, choosing to locate the 30m tower within trees that are, of their own admission, only 4 to 5m high with the net result that the heavy duty tower would be 25m above the trees and the skyline, with a substantial and visually heavy structure at the top.

Whilst the compound and the cabinets could be screened by the surrounding trees the intrusive element of the tower and the attachments would not.

Furthermore, as the applicant has no control over the trees around the site there is no guarantee that those trees will remain to provide screening.

Overall this is a particularly unsatisfactory proposal and the AONB OBJECTS. If the application as it currently stands progresses to committee than the AONB would wish to attend your committee to present its case for rejecting the proposal.

Neighbour Comments:Mrs Elizabeth CosgroveFlat 1, 27 Icen Way

On behalf of the East Dorset Archaeology Group:The village of All Hallows is a Saxon settlement, referred to in Domesday Book. The river Allen valley is extremely rich in archaeology structures, from the Neolithic to medieval. Any substantial development in this important area should always be accompanied by an archaeological condition. This construction will involve substantial trenches which should be observed when being dug. Recommend a watching brief.Andrew Morgan Chairman Jan Cosgrove Secretary

Officers Report:

Site and proposalThe full application proposes a completely new telecommunications development involving the installation of a shared electronic communications base station comprising a 30m lattice tower, six antennae, two 0.6m DIA dishes and six ground based radio equipment cabinets installed within a fenced compound.

It is promoted by Central Government under the Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP) which is a Government funded initiative to provide mobile coverage over "complete not spot areas" i.e. where there is no mobile coverage from any Mobile Network Operator (MNO). Such areas are either technically challenging, or uneconomic, and as a consequence are often in remote areas, or designated landscapes - such as here in the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire and AONB.

The proposal will provide coverage supported by all MNO's. It will provide 3rd and 4th Generation (3G and 4G) coverage for the surrounding area. The new mast with antennae tops out at 30.0m above ground level (AGL).

The site is located within a well screened area with mature trees and hedging around on a relatively high point in the landscape in a remote countryside location within the AONB. The site is not in a Green Belt location, or an Area of Great Landscape Value.

The application is not accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The applicant, however, facilitated a 'Flag Wave' exercise on 7th October, 2015, attended by the Case Officer and representative of the AONB Office and Department of Media Culture and Sport. This involved erecting a metal pole to the full 30.0m height on the site of the proposed mast to enable attendees to observe the

flag atop the pole from various locations around the site and assess the potential visual impact of the mast on the character of the site and surroundings.

It is noted that there are no other masts in the area, and those that are otherwise contained in the AONB within East Dorset are of the 15.0m high type, either monopoles or lattice mast structures that ordinarily constitute permitted development.

Representations on behalf of the applicantFollowing the Flag Wave exercise the applicant has made the following representations in support of the application:

"Mr B from the Cranborne Chase AONB Partnership raised a number of queries on alternative technology solutions yesterday, drawing on the experience of deploying Vodafone's microcell initiative in Cranborne, and you requested further information on why these are not viable alternatives to the proposed Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP) base station, which I set out below.As explained at our site meeting, all of these initiatives entail the use of what are known as outdoor femtocells, picocells or microcells which are small base stations providing very localised coverage, and they include Vodafone's Rural Open Sure Signal programme (the system deployed in Cranborne), EE's micro-network initiative, and BT OpenReach's Mobile Infrastructure Infill Solution project. There are a number of reasons why these initiatives are not viable alternatives to the coverage that will be provided from the proposed MIP base station:

Under EU State-Aid rules governing MIP, the coverage solutions must be available to all operators and on a level competitive playing field. There is currently no common alternative microcell technological solution adopted by the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) that allow shared use and the nature of the systems would require many and various host locations. Such solutions cannot therefore be delivered within the limited timescales of MIP, even if they were to become available at some undefined point in the future

The systems that do exist have a much shorter range than a macrocell base station. They would not therefore provide the wider geographical coverage provided by the proposed macrocell base station that is now recognised as increasingly important without very large volumes of installations, which would be impractical for MIP

Most of the femtocell, picocell and microcell systems need to be linked by dish or fast fixed broadband services. In the mainly remote areas with difficult terrain, lines of sight dish connections from domestic or agricultural scale buildings is more difficult as microcells and picocells are typically deployed below roof tops, a constrain compound if the intended coverage area is in a valley. In addition, most fixed line services in rural areas are too slow, with little prospect of upgrade within the life of MIP roll out. The systems that use in-band repeaters are very low capacity and can cause more technical problems than they solve, especially when used to provide coverage across large areas

Even if fast fixed line services are available, they would not be superfast or even if described as such would be unable to support 4G services for all four MNOs. Whilst MIP can only promise to deliver 2G voice and basic data services, the agreement with the MNOs means that all MIP sites are being deployed with 3G and 4G connectivity to ensure that rural areas do not suffer another market failure and need another State Aid supported project to deliver 4G in the future

Finally, network planning, acquisition of host structures and agreements with fixed line providers would also be too complex to resolve in the life of MIP.

Whether or not the pre-requisites of each of these microcell or femtocell programmes are available in a local area, these solutions are not considered by the MNOs themselves to be a replacement for a macrocell base station, such as the proposed MIP base station, due to their limited coverage. Indeed, Vodafone has expressly stated on its website that its Rural Open Sure Signal programme is only suitable for small rural areas and that for coverage of a large area a mast is still the best option. Such initiatives, which unlike MIP installations are only for single operators, are therefore unable to provide wider area coverage.

Mr B also raised s.85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act in relation to the statutory duty imposed on public bodies to have regard to the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of an area of outstanding natural beauty. This been carefully considered and is reflected in the general consultations undertaken with the Council and other Dorset Authorities to explain the MIP requirements affecting the AONB, including attendance by the Cranborne Chase AONB Partnership at least one of these meetings, by the search undertaken to identify a site that minimises impact on the AONB, and through the pre-application consultation undertaken with the Council and the AONB Partnership in relation the proposed development.

In this regard, I would also draw your attention to the Culture Secretary Said Javid MP's announcement on 3 February this year that agreement had been reached with the MNOs to vary their licences that currently require them to provide coverage to 90% of the UK population to a new requirement to provide coverage to 90% of the UK's geographical area. I've reproduced below an extract of the announcement posted on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's website that summarises this agreement and I have taken the opportunity to highlight in bold the section of most relevance to the relationship between this initiative and the MIP:

'…Under the agreement - a first ever - all four of the mobile networks have collectively agreed to: £5bn investment programme to improve mobile infrastructure by 2017 - potentially creating jobs and a boost for the UK economy; guaranteed voice and text coverage from each operator across 90 per cent of the UK geographic area by 2017, halving the areas currently blighted by patchy coverage as a result of partial 'not-spots'; full coverage from all four mobile operators will increase from 69 per cent to 85 per cent of geographic areas by 2017; and provide reliable signal strength for voice for each type of mobile service (whether 2G/3G/4G) - currently many consumers frequently lose signal or cannot get signal long enough to make a call.

As a result of the deal, it will cut total 'not-spots' where there is currently no mobile coverage by two-thirds. This will support the Government's existing £150m programme to take mobile coverage to the areas of the UK that have no coverage at all. Many parts of the UK will also benefit from better data coverage, some for the first time.'Ofcom, the independent regulator of the UK's communications industries, is currently consulting on this proposed change, now being referred to by them as the MNOs "geographic coverage obligation". Whilst this agreement will have the side benefit of addressing some complete not spots, it is principally targeted to address partial not spots. The Government's announcement confirms that the MIP remains the principal means of providing coverage to the complete not spots within the remaining 10% of the UK.

Implicit within the Government's objective to move towards 100% geographical UK coverage is the recognition that macro base station sites, like the MIP proposal at Coach Road, need to be developed within nationally important landscapes such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. That is because such installations remain the principal means for providing the umbrella of coverage that will be needed to meet this objective. This new objective is therefore an important factor in Government policy, which should carry weight in the decision making process for the application proposal where all of the not spots fall within the Cranborne Chase AONB and where it is not possible to provide the required level of coverage from locations beyond the AONB."

Further representations from the AONB Office"As you headed off in the direction of Tenantry Down and the Gussage Valley I looked at the single mast and flag from rights of way and minor roads on the north east side of Wimborne St Giles as well as from the B3081 and A354. I did not, in the time available, get over to the ridge road that connects the A354 and the Horton Inn.

At Sixpenny Handley roundabout I was reminded of the recent upgrade to the fittings on the shorter mast there; that mast would appear to cover some of the area on the plan [shown to] us. It seems the proposed mast would be duplicating provision there. Also, …. the proposed mast does not appear to need to be so high to maintain a 'line of sight' to other masts [which happen to be conveniently disguised in historic structures!]. (Horton Tower).

I was surprised how obvious the flag was from the Monkton Up Wimborne area and the Jubilee Trail. At a number of locations it appeared as an isolated, tall, and unusual feature above the trees and the skyline. In the places where it appeared to come directly from the fields, with the base vegetation screened by the topography, it was even more stark. The location, and the ridge where the mast is proposed, is quite visible from an extensive section of the B3081. The mast would be an industrial feature on an otherwise uncluttered and unspoilt skyline. The recently approved grain store below the site of the mast has not only the benefit of a significant landscape treatment and planting scheme but it is also located with, from many directions, a backdrop of the cultivated fields. Unfortunately the proposed mast would be the only feature protruding above the height of trees and church towers in this part of the AONB, or indeed, most parts of this AONB.

…. It dawned on me that the 'test' we were being shown was a considerable understatement of the impact of a mast. The real thing would be three poles, not one, and hence creating a more substantial [and visible] structure by a factor of 3. The lattice metal struts, although less solid than a tubular mast [as used on wind turbines], do add further to the substance, visual mass, and industrial character of the proposed mast. I also found that the wind direction often meant the flag was viewed end on, and hence very narrow, which meant it was nowhere near as substantial as the 'cake tin' style dishes and the pod like antennae that are proposed.

[Having] read the email string ….. you will have gathered from this morning, the AONB is unimpressed by Arqiva's lack of professional landscape skills and input. This AONB provides mitigation advice based on many years of experience and in relation to the particular and special landscapes of this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. NPPF paragraph 43 is quite clear about 'camouflaged where appropriate', and this AONB's Position Statements and Good Practice Notes provide guidance for this AONB."

Relevant Site HistoryNone.

PolicyPolicies KS1, HE2, HE3 and PC3 of the Core Strategy (CS) are applicable as is the advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and government Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

In the NPPF, 2012, Section 5. 'Supporting high quality communications infrastructure', is of relevance.

S5, Paragraph 43 of the NPPF advises:

"43. In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including telecommunications and high speed broadband. They should aim to keep the numbers of radio and telecommunications masts and the sites for such installations to a minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. Existing masts, buildings and other structures should be used, unless the need for a new site has been justified. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate."

Paragraph 46 advises:

"46. Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds.They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for the telecommunications system, or determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure."

Main impacts

The main issue is the impact on the AONB. Implicit in this is the visual impact on the landscape and adjacent uses/buildings, archaeology and highway safety.

Impact on the AONBThe Government's general policy on telecommunications development is to facilitate the efficient and effective growth of telecommunications systems, whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum, including the promotion of mast sharing where this is available.

The comments received from the AONB office have been noted.

The site is in an isolated elevated position in the countryside and AONB. The site is approximately 1.5m from the eastern edge of the AONB boundary, the bulk of the AONB area lies to the west and north of the site.

Spot height is 98m AOD as per the OS Landranger 1:50000 map.

To the west, Gussage Hill is the highest point in the locality at 117m AOD.

The existing 15.0m mast at Cashmoor to the west stands on ground at 80m AOD.

The site benefits from screening provided by the existing mature woodland that surrounds it. This is of sufficient depth and density to cover the base station equipment and fencing which would not be readily seen from a distance. However, the top section of the mast and its head frame will be visible from afar and could be viewed from certain public viewpoints near the site.

The visual impact arising from the height of the mast 30m above ground level of 98m AOD, and the attachments to head frame will present a significant structure in respect of its height in a rural area where no such similar structures at 30m high exist (Other masts tend to be 15.0m high structures which are Permitted Development).

There will be a visual impact from the siting of the structure.

The nearest residences are sited some distance from the mast site - Downside is 560m, and All Hallows Cottage 580m downhill to the east.

Following the Flag Wave exercise the Council forwarded the following notes to the AONB Office before it received the further comments of the AONB Office:

"I noted your concerns that no LVIA had been submitted to back up the application, however, I believe that this exercise was far more useful; as it put the height of the mast and its landscape impact in context with its surroundings, rather than trying to reconcile photographs and montages from different viewpoints that you would not necessarily be familiar with.

I found in my drive around the area, that the mast whilst visible from various public vantage points, would have a limited visual impact on the surroundings, having viewed it from:- Land to the north-east along the Jubilee Trail Public Byway - views obtained;- From All Hallows Farm along the road to the north-west up to the Public Byway at Monkton Up Wimborne - views obtained;- From the south east along the public highway between Bull Bridge and All Hallows Farm - no views;

- From Baileys Hill to the south - no views;- From The public Byway running south-west from the site to Tenantry Down and Brockington Down - views available;

The above views, unless across fields tend to be glimpses between hedges, or at gate entrances to fields from the public highway. My consideration is that, further more distant views will be subject to 'distance decay', and whilst the site itself is elevated, and the mast will be 30m high, I am struggling to see that it will have an unacceptably adverse visual impact on the character of the AONB. This is notwithstanding the social and practical benefits of mobile communications the development is likely to have for residents, land users and the emergency services."

However, the resulting visual impact has to be weighed against the requirement for the mast which as explained above and in the supporting information is promoted and funded by Central Government to provide mobile coverage over "complete not spot areas" i.e. where there is no mobile coverage from any Mobile Network Operator (MNO). The sustained objection from the AONB Office has to be weighed against the fact that the AONB area, and adjoining settlements and countryside form part of a living, working landscape that would benefit from 21st century mobile communications, which the UK Government sees as strategically important enough to fund via the MIP programme. The mast is close to the edge of the AONB area, and will have a far reach into the area given the height of the site location and distances over ground that signals from the mast can reach - line of sight. The positive aspect of this is that fewer masts should be required to cover a wide area.

Knowlton Parish Council supports the proposed development on the grounds that this Government promoted installation meets the requirements of National Planning Policy for sustainable rural communities. No objections have been received from the public and whilst the AONB has requested an LVIA, as the site would not change - there is nowhere else in the locality at the height, and remoteness of the proposed site to obtain the required coverage, and commented that the grey colour is inappropriate - black or olive green colours where applied to smaller 15.0m masts, elsewhere usually against mature tree backgounds, would show up more here against the skyline given the elevated height of the site, and would emphasise the presence of the mast more than the proposed grey colour would. The grey colour would reflect and resembles grey skies - which are the most prevalent sky colour here - and would also present a softer view against the backdrop of blue skies than black or olive green.

A mast that resembles a tree as an alternative as employed in both the Lake District National Park and West Suffolk AGLV would appear completely out of keeping given the height proposed compared to the height of surrounding tree cover.

Overall, the Council has weighed the adverse visual impact of the development and its impact on the character of the AONB, against the economic and everyday requirements of the population and users of the countryside in respect of mobile communications - which in emergency situations could prove invaluable; and, in everyday situations will bring remote areas into the sphere of modern mobile telecommunications.

Overall, the economic and social benefits offered by the development are considered to outweigh the adverse visual impact on the landscape, and the application is recommended for approval. Therefore, it is considered that any conflict with Policies HE2 and HE3 of the Core Strategy is mitigated sufficiently against via the requirement for the development.

Impact on adjacent uses/buildingsThe proposal is an acceptable distance from the nearest buildings at Downside Farm and is well screened from the majority of them and dwellings in Wimborne St Giles from given the various separation distances involved. It would not have any adverse effect on the occupants of these buildings accordingly.

Health ImplicationsThe NPPF explains that it is not for the LPA to seek to replicate through planning controls what is covered under the health and safety regime.

Provided that the equipment meets the ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure, then it is the Government's view that the planning system should not assess the health implications. The agent has submitted the Declaration of Conformity with ICNIP Public Exposure Guidelines (dated 7.7.15), and as such the legislation does not allow the Council to consider this further.

Highway safetyThe main impacts will be on the Bridleway leading to the site from the local road network from construction traffic visiting the site during the construction process. Thereafter, apart from periodic maintenance there will be minimal traffic movements connected with the site. Dorset CC Highways has raised no objections to the proposals, and emails between EDDC and DCC Highways and the Rights of Way section indicate that there will be no adverse impact on the right of way (Bridleway). DCC Highways has raised no objection subject to conditions covering the Public Right of Way. Therefore, there is no requirement to consult the County Rights of Way Officer directly.

ArchaeologyThe County Archaeologist has advised that he is not aware of any particular archaeological reasons for concern.

The East Dorset Archaeology Group has advised that the River Allen Valley is rich in archaeological heritage dating from the Neolithic to Mediaeval periods, and as the construction involves substantial trenches being dug these should be observed via an archaeological watching brief.

The comments of the East Dorset Archaeology Group are noted, however, given the lack of any such requirement from the County Archaeologist, who is the statutory consultee, it is considered that the imposition of a condition requiring a watching brief would be onerous and unreasonable in this case.

ConclusionThe application is recommended for approval as it is a Central Government objective required by the Mobile Infrastructure Project and accords with the objectives of Core Strategy Policy PC3 and S5, Paragraphs 43 and 46 of the 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:

Drawing No.304289-00-04-ML001 Rev. 1: Site Location Plan

Drawing No. 304289-20-100-MD001 Rev. 1: Site Plan Proposed DCMS

Drawing No. 304289-20-150-MD001 Rev. 1: Elevation Plan Proposed DCMS

Drawing No. 304289-20-151-MD001 Rev. 1: Headframes and Schedules Plan Proposed DCMS

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

At such times as the mast hereby permitted is no longer required for personal telecommunications and the use of the mast has been discontinued, the mast shall be removed from the land and the land restored to its previous authorised state in all respects.

Reason: To reserve to the Local Planning Authority control over the long-term use of the land.

3 The site affects a Public-Right-of-Way which must not be obstructed or encroached upon, the surface damaged or made dangerous to ensure the safe passage for the public at all times.

Reason: In the interests of road safety

4 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:

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.

Informatives:

1 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, National Planning Practice Guidance 2014 and Policies KS1, HE2, HE3 and PC3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy in the determination of the application.

2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application:

The application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy 2014 were taken into account. Saved policies within the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, were also taken into account. These include specifically the following policies: Core Strategy Policies KS1, HE2, HE3 and PC3.

Item Number 3 Ref:

Proposal: Alterations and extensions. 5 Golf Links Road, Ferndown, Dorset.

Site Address:

, for Mr Andrew Duff

Site Notice expired: 9 October, 2015Nbr-Nfn expired: 7 October, 2015

Town Council: OBJECT (Unanimous) Members appreciated that there had been some reduction in size and bulk from the previous application 3/15/0265/HOU, but remained of the opinion that that the proposed development was not in keeping with the street scene and that the bulk and size of the proposed building was out of keeping and character with others in the area.

Consultee Responses:EDDC Tree Section No objections - Following my site visit on the 13th and

19th May 2015, I made the following observations: The only protected trees on site are situated within the rear garden of the above property. The proposed development will not encroach into the root protection of these trees, a mature Silver Birch and 2 Cypresses. However, to safe guard against the compaction and mixing and/or storing of materials within their rooting environment if consent is given, protective fencing would need to be erected at least 5m away from the Silver Birch and Cypress to safeguard against this.

The development of this site would provide an opportunity to replenish the landscaping in the front garden. While the current shrubs provide screening, they may benefit from some fresh planting.

Given the above, should you be minded to approve this application, I recommend that the following conditions are imposed.

Conditions:1. A plan showing the location and specification of barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development. The barriers shall be erected 5m away from the Silver Birch and Cypress 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 areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.Reason - To ensure that trees and their rooting environments are afforded adequate physical protection during construction.

2. Notwithstanding details already submitted, full plans and particulars showing the final siting of the services and soakaways shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to commencement of works on site.

Neighbour Comments: None received

Officers Report:

The siteThe present dwelling at 5 Golf Links Road is a chalet bungalow situated within the Ferndown Urban Area, at the northern end of Golf Links Road. The site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The application is for the proposed alterations and extension of the existing property, this includes the provision of full first floor accommodation, raising of the roof and a rear extension to the dwelling.

Policy ConsiderationsThe main policy considerations are paragraphs 58 - 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part One - Core Strategy (adopted 28 April, 2014). The key considerations are the impact on the residential amenities of the adjacent properties and also the impact of the proposal on the protected trees, character, and visual amenities of the area.

Site HistoryAn application for rear extensions, an extension to the garage & installation of dormer windows was approved in 1992.

3/15/0265/HOU ProposalThe proposal is for the raising of the roof to provide full first floor accommodation, creating a two storey detached dwelling with an 8.1m high pitched roof. The two storey rear extension involves the removal of the existing dining room and conservatory, and replacement with a full width extension, measuring 1m in depth and 9.6m in width, with a further flat roof single storey extension measuring 2m in depth and 9.6m in width. It is proposed that the northern end of this flat roof extension will be used as a balcony.

3/15/0983/HOU ProposalThis proposal similarly seeks to add an additional level of first floor accommodation above the full area of the ground floor. It differs from the previously withdrawn proposal in the at the shape of the new roof over the second storey has been re-

designed so that the previous 8.2m ridge height is now reduced to 7.2m; and the eaves height reduced from 5.2m to 4.6m. A double pile roof, with 2 main gables front and rear with a part flat-roofed, part ridged roof in between replaces the previously proposed hipped and pitched, crown roof. The footprint and floor coverage are slightly less than previously proposed and the front porch is now a single storey, flat-roofed element with the roof supported by two columns that is in style and keeping with the two gabled, and central element design of the front elevation, rather than the two-storey centrally located element under a pitched roof. The depth of the development over the two stories, plus rear balcony at first floor level is reduced from 14.2m to 13.3m.

Impact on the StreetsceneThis section of Golf Links Road is characterised by a row of chalet bungalows of a reasonably uniform size and scale which are not prominent in the streetscene.

The proposed development now raises the roof by 1m (previously 2m) and introduces a more balanced and roofscape to the dwelling that has distinct, evenly spaced elements to it, which results in the creation of a two storey house of commensurate proportions to the adjoining 1 ½ storey scale dwellings either side without the incongruous height, bulk and mass of the previously proposed hipped and pitched, crown roof. The depth of the property remains fairly similar, with the addition of a full width extension to the rear. The revised roof design means that the full height first floor will now result in a much less significant visual and physical increase in the depth of the property.

The proposal will now be as prominent in the streetscene of Golf Links Road, and the changes to the roof form and height will contrast with, rather than dominate above the smaller scale bungalows which surround it. The proposed development is whilst it would result in a substantial extension of the host property, it should fit quite comfortably in the streetscene resulting in a design, scale and form which would acceptable in this location.

Impact on neighbouring propertiesThe proposed alterations include the provision of new first floor windows to the front, rear and south western side elevations of the property. The front facing windows are considered acceptable in terms of their impact on neighbouring amenity as there are no properties located opposite.

The window proposed to the side (south west) elevation serves a bathroom, and could be conditioned to be obscure glazed to preserve neighbouring amenity. The new rear first floor windows serve bedrooms and allow some degree of overlooking to the neighbouring property at No 7, however the presence of some hedging and an approx. 2m boundary fence assists in reducing this and the level of overlooking is considered acceptable within the Urban Area. The balcony proposed may enable occupants to achieve views back into the neighbouring property at No 3 which would not be acceptable, this could be prevented by a condition to provide a 1.8m high screen to the sides of the balcony and so prevent any loss of amenity, either real or perceived, to these neighbours. Although there is no issue with overlooking or loss of light, there will be some visual and physical impact on the neighbours as a result of the increased mass and bulk of

the proposal, but this will be less than the previously withdrawn scheme given the lower eaves and ridge heights of the new roof structure. Overall, it is considered that the impact on neighbours amenities is not so great that it should result in a refusal of the proposed development.

There have been no neighbour objections. The Town Council has objected to the proposal due to the bulk and size of the proposed resultant building which it considers would be out of keeping and not in character with other dwellings in the area.

Officers consider that the revised scheme represents a significant improvement in terms of design, bulk and scale compared to the previously withdrawn Ref: 3/15/1265/HOU proposal, and is acceptable.

Officers note that application Ref: 3/14/0775/HOU for an extension to create a new first floor at 18 Golf Links Road, which is nearby has been completed, and the design, scale, bulk and materials used are eye-catching, particularly the blue-grey colour of the external weatherboarding.

In examining both schemes, Officers note that the proposed first floor extensions for 5 Golf Links Road are smaller in scale; closely reflect the existing footprint of the dwelling; and, that the proposes materials are smooth render for the walls - painted cream, and slate for the roof. The colour of paint for the walls can be conditioned, and should match the white/cream painted render of the adjoining dwellings at Nos. 3 and 7 Golf Links Road.

Members are reminded that each application should be determined on its merits in accordance with the development plan and any other material considerations. In this case, it is considered that the merits of the proposal are acceptable, and any comparisons with the development at 18 Golf Links Road should be discounted.

Impact on Protected Trees The protected trees on site are located towards the rear garden of the property and the proposed development will not encroach into the root protection zone of these trees, however to safeguard against the compaction and mixing and/or storing of materials within their rooting environment and protective fencing will safeguard against this. Two conditions have been proposed to ensure this.

ConclusionThe proposal is a significant improvement on the previously withdrawn Ref: 3/15/1265/HOU proposal. The spatial relationship of the development the neighbouring dwellings and character of the street scene and general character of the surrounding area should not be overly dominant. The slightly increased ridge height, and reduced bulk and massing of the development should sit fairly comfortably with surrounding properties, and the design now proposed represents a significant improvement.

The development is considered to comply with the provisions of Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1- Core Strategy (2014); and, paragraphs, 56, 59 and 60 contained in section 7 'Requiring good design' of the NPPF, and the application should be approved.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:Drawing No. 4934/05 Rev. A Location and Site Plans - scales - 1:1,250 and 1:500; Drawing No. 4934/03 Rev. D Proposed Ground Floor and First Floor Plans - scale 1:50 @ A1;Drawing No. 4934/04 Rev. D Proposed Elevations - scale 1:50 @ A1;all stamped received 28th August, 2015.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external walls of the development, hereby permitted, shall be identical in every respect to those of the existing building, the render colour finish to the walls and roofing material shall be as described on the approved drawings and application forms 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 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, a 1.8m high obscure glazed screen with glazing at no less than 3 on the Pilkington Scale of Obscuration, shall be provided along the extent of the side of the balcony closest to the neighbouring dwelling at No. 3 Golf Links Road.Reason: To prevent any overlooking and consequent loss of amenity and privacy from the occupants of this neighbouring dwelling and garden in compliance wit the provisions of Policy HE2 contained in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014.

5 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a plan showing the location and specification of barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development. The barriers shall be erected 5m away from the Silver Birch and Cypress 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 areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason - To ensure that trees and their rooting environments are afforded adequate physical protection during construction in accordance with the provisions of Saved Policy DES7 of the East Dorset District Local Plan 2002.

6 Notwithstanding details already submitted, full plans and particulars showing the final siting of the services and soakaways shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to commencement of works on site.Reason - To ensure that trees and their rooting environments are afforded adequate physical protection from the construction of the drains serving the development in accordance with the provisions of Saved Policy DES7 of the East Dorset District Local Plan 2002.

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

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 its decision to APPROVE the application the Council considered it to be acceptable as submitted.

2 The Council has had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework; Saved Policy DES7 in the East Dorset Local Plan 2002; and, Policy HE2 in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014.

Policy Considerations and ReasonsIn reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy 2014 were taken into account. Saved policies within the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, were also taken into account. These include specifically the following policies: Saved Policy DES7 in the East Dorset Local Plan 2002; and, Core Strategy Policy HE2.

Item Number 4 Ref: 3/15/1029/FUL

Proposal: Replacement agricultural building with increased height for staff offices and facilities. Forest Edge Nurseries, Verwood Road, Woodlands.

Site Address:

, for Mr D Edge

Site Notice expired: 1 November 2015Nbr-Nfn expired: 29 October 2015

Parish Comments: We SUPPORT this proposal which is proportionate and a sensible solution. The proposal also visually improves the site for this local employer

Neighbour Comments:Miss A GilbertThe Retreat, Verwood Road

Full Objection Letter On File

Officers Report:Site and surroundingsThe site is set back from the public highway, Verwood Road, which runs through the small settlement village of Woodlands and behind other dwellings and land in relation to the road, so that it is quite isolated in the context of its surroundings. In addition, there is a screen of mature trees and a thick hedge along the site's western boundary, as well as woodland planting around the other sides of the site meaning that it is well-screened from its surroundings. The dwelling on site is not readily visible from the access track leading up to it, or from the nearest dwelling 'The Firs', which is also served by this track.

The Case Officer has visited and toured the site, noting the areas used for preparation and packaging contained in two large shed/workshops, the planting out areas - both to the rear of the dwelling and the land surrounded by woodland on the opposite side of the access track to the site, the polytunnels - approximately 26 in all, including uncovered frames, and the static caravan sited adjacent to the main shed/workshop which is presently used as a staff room/staff toilet facility.

Planning History03/81/0676/HST - Retain Caravan - approved 21/8/8103/82/0022/HST - Erection of Agricultural Dwelling - Outline. Approved 26/2/1982.03/85/1513/HST - One Sign - approved 9/9/1985.03/00/0727/FUL - Agricultural Shed - Approved - 18/8/2000. 3/08/0384/FUL - Remove Agricultural Occupancy Condition - Refused - 13/5/083/08/1071/FUL - Remove Agricultural Occupancy Condition - Refused - 30/10/083/09/0243/FUL - Remove Agricultural Occupancy Condition - Approved - 9/6/09

More recent planning history comprises:3/14/0659/FUL - Extension to Dwelling to Form Granny Annex with Staff Facilities Over

Refused on grounds of:- Inappropriate development in Green Belt;- Insufficient Very Special Circumstances

- Contrary to Policy Saved Local plan HODEV4

Ref: 3/14/1123/FUL - Single storey extension to form annexe (Resubmission)- Unacceptable by reason of its size and scale, and poor relationship to the host dwelling;- Insufficient Very Special Circumstances- Potential for the creation of a separate dwelling unit contrary to Saved Local

Plan Policy HODEV4

Neither of these refusal decisions was appealed.

Planning PolicyThe site lies in open countryside outside the Village Settlement Boundary for Woodlands. It lies in the South East Dorset Green Belt and within an Area of Great Landscape Value.

Certain of the Council's planning policies contained in the East Dorset District Local Plan 2002, are 'saved' and are of relevance to this application. Otherwise, planning policy for the District is contained in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014, which reflects, and in part, rehearses the Local Plan Policies. Central Government advice is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) particularly at Section 3 'Supporting a prosperous rural economy; Section 7 'Requiring good design'; and, Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land'.

In the Core Strategy the following Policies are of relevance:

KS3 Green BeltHE2 Design of New DevelopmentHE3 Landscape Quality

PC4 outlined on p. 183 of the Core Strategy is supportive of such proposals. It relates to applications for economic development in the open countryside.

Policy PC4 states:

Although economic development will be strictly controlled in open countryside away from existing settlements, in order to promote sustainable economic growth in the rural area, applications for economic development will be encouraged where development is located in or on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing, services and other facilities can be provided close together. Such proposals should be small scale to reflect the rural character.

Proposals for the conversion and re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside for economic development and tourist related uses, must ensure:

- The proposal supports the vitality and viability of rural service centres and villages with existing facilities.

- Proposals must not adversely impact the supply of employment sites and premises and the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the area, when considering proposals which involve the loss of economic activity.

- Proposals do not have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it.

- The benefits outweigh the harm in terms of:

1. The potential impact on countryside, landscapes and wildlife.2. Development is compatible with the pursuit of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) purposes, which are set out in the AONB Management Plan.3. Local economic and social needs and opportunities not met elsewhere.4. Settlement patterns and the level of accessibility to service centres, markets and housing.5. The building is suitable for the proposed use without major re-building and would not require any significant alteration which would damage its fabric and character, or detract from the local characteristics and landscape quality of the area. Any necessary car parking provision should also not have an adverse impact on the setting of the building in the open countryside.6. The preservation of buildings of historic or architectural importance/interest, or which otherwise contributes to local character.

Proposals for the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses will be supported which meet the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and also that:

Are consistent in scale and environmental impact with their rural location avoiding adverse impacts on sensitive habitats, Areas of Great Landscape Value and landscapes identified through landscape character assessments and the openness of the Green Belt.

Conserve the landscape quality and scenic beauty of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB, and comply with the provisions of the AONB Management Plan.

Do not harm amenity and enjoyment of the countryside through the impact of noise and traffic generation.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012Section 9 of the NPPF 'Protecting Green Belt land' advises that apart from excepted development. Paragraphs 87 and 88 advise:

"87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Paragraph 89 (in part) advises:

"89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings asinappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:

"the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result indisproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;"

Principle of developmentIt can be argued that the Nursery is an agricultural holding as it uses agricultural land for the production of crops (albeit non-food crops) and the provision of staff accommodation is excepted development in the context of the NPPF guidance. The development proposes the replacement of the existing single storey, potting shed/storage. It is noted that the present building albeit functional, is in poor condition, and from a business viewpoint its replacement is a sensible option.

The proposed replacement building is over 2 floors, whereas the existing building is single storey. Granted the footprint is similar to the existing building, however, given the first floor accommodation proposed, and its distinctly separate access via an external staircase, there is no scope for integration between floors, and the Council remains concerned that the first floor is tantamount to a separate unit of living accommodation.

Given the site's location in the South East Dorset Green Belt which was designated on 5th February 1980, and the development of the dwelling on site from circa 1982, the Council's view is that Very Special Circumstances to justify the size and scale of the development proposed are required for it to be justified as an exception to Green Belt Policy, as outlined above. As the site is well-screened and fairly remote from other development, it could not be readily monitored. The Council does not have the resources to monitor the occupancy of proposed staff accommodation to ensure that it is lawfully occupied, so to condition that it be retained as linked accommodation and not converted to a separate unit of living accommodation would be difficult to enforce.

The replacement of the potting shed/storage building as opposed to the main workshop, is acceptable in principle. The Council had advised the applicant by letter dated 30th January, 2014, to consider a more modest structure. At the pre-application stage a further letter dated 28th August, 2014, relating to this specific proposal it advised:

- "The replacement building should be single storey only;- The floorspace created should be the minimum required to meet the efficient operation of the Nursery; - If a larger footprint is employed it should involve the addition of no more than 1 ½ times the floor area of the present static caravan - photos of the caravan are held on file;

- Any new staff facilities should be integrated with and accessible from the replacement potting shed/storage facilities internally and on the same level;- Building materials should be blockwork walls clad in weatherboarding to match the existing structure which would blend in with the surroundings whilst providing a more durable structure.

The Council considers that any additional land area required would not result in an unacceptably significant loss of productive land."

In consideration of the 3/14/0659/FUL application for the annexe and staff accommodation above attached to the dwelling on site, with regard to the proposed staff accommodation, the Council noted that the applicant wished to locate it above the proposed annexe as it would aid security from its elevated position by allowing observation of the Nursery site and the vehicular access to the holding, as well as providing new staff facilities. The present staffroom facilities are located in a static caravan adjacent to the main workshop/packing building on the site. As there is no requirement for staff to live on the site, either the static caravan can be relocated to the position where the previously proposed annexe was to be sited - which would allow for connection to services, and observation of the site access, or the provision of staff accommodation more closely related to the existing buildings on site should be considered.

As submitted, the replacement agricultural building with staff accommodation above represents a sizeable building in the Green Belt. The footprint of the building remains the same as the existing potting shed/storage structure on site, however, the height, bulk and scale of the overall structure is considered to be excessive in terms of overall floorspace, scale and proportion. As such, the proposed agricultural building/staff accommodation is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt, that would be harmful to the provisions of Local Plan Policy GB3 and would be contrary to the Guidance relating to Green Belts outlined in Sections 9 'Protecting Green Belt land' in the NPPF; and, Core Strategy Policy KS3.

In principle, the Council concludes that this proposed development would be inappropriate in this location and is unacceptable.

Very Special Circumstances (VSC)The site lies within the South East Dorset Green Belt and the general policiesthat control development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved, except in Very Special Circumstances (VSC). Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very Special Circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

National Planning Policy Guidance in respect of development in Green Belts is contained in The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 at Section 9. This outlines policies in respect of development in Green Belts.

Section 9, Paragraph 79 of the NPPF advises that the overriding purpose of GreenBelt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that: "as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should notbe approved except in very special circumstances."

Paragraph 88 advises: "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to theGreen Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is outweighed by other considerations".

It further advises at Paragraph 89 that in exceptions in respect of the construction of new buildings in Green Belts that may be appropriate are where they are for:- Agriculture or forestry;- Outdoor sport, recreation or for cemeteries providing the openness of the

Green belt is maintained;- The extension of a building provided it is not result in disproportionate

additions to the original building;- The replacement of a building provided it is for the same use and is not

materially larger than the one it replaces;- Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community

needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or- Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously

developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

The construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for a number of purposes. (Set out above in Paragraph 89 of the NPPF) The proposal in accords with the purpose of agriculture or forestry and in part, (agricultural processing on the ground floor with first floor staff accommodation above), therefore, it is classed as appropriate development within the Green Belt. However, the proposed building is judged as a whole, and as indicated in the 'Principle of Development' section above, the applicant has not demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that the harm, by reason of its inappropriateness and any other harm is outweighed by the existence of any VSC.

The Very Special Circumstances that the applicant appears to have put forward are, namely: o The removal of the of the static mobile home from the siteo The office and staff facilities will be sited above the replacement agricultural; building accommodation lessening the overall impact of the development on the Green Belt;o The new facilities will be of benefit to Nursery employees

These are not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt, as advised in part of Paragraph 89 of the NPPF.Paragraph 89 (in part) advises:

"89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings asinappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:

- the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result indisproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;".

The Council considers that the new building with the addition of a first floor is disproportionate in relation to the original Potting shed/storage building.

The District Council, as decision-maker is also required to apply substantial weight to other aspects of harm to the green belt where these harms relate to either the purposes of the green belt (see Para 80 of the NPPF) or the objectives of the green belt (set out in Para 81). All other (non-green belt) harm caused by the development, for example the impact of the proposal on visual amenity, will also be given weight, although not necessarily "substantial weight". Against this assessment of harm, the Council has assessed both the mitigation of that harm (the removal of the static mobile home adjacent to the nursery building workshop and the tidying of and potential visual improvement of the site) and the need for (and benefits of) the proposal - the potential for the improved operation of the Nursery site, and the provision of dedicated staff accommodation.

The erection of the replacement two-storey agricultural building providing staff and office facilities on the first floor, as proposed by the application has already been considered to be unacceptable as outlined above. Consequently, there are considered to be no Very Special Circumstances (VSC) afforded by this application, including the considerations that the proposal will improve site security that warrants a departure from the District Council's normal policy of restraint and presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Design and Visual ImpactThe design, scale and proportions of the first floor office and staff accommodation, whilst it may provide such functions, is such that it has a domestic appearance and could easily be occupied as a separate unit of living accommodation. There is no inter-connection between the ground and first floor accommodation, as the staff and office facilities are proposed to be accessed by an external staircase which is visually intrusive and unnecessary. An internal staircase could be provided without unacceptably compromising the floorspace provision. However, the site is well screened by boundary trees and is divorced from adjoining residential properties. It is not readily visible from the public realm being located along a private track. The visual impact on the rural character of the site and surroundings would be limited.

Impact on Neighbours AmenitiesThe comments received from the neighbour at The Retreat are noted. This adjoining dwelling is sited to the east of the site and is screened to a large extent by the workshop building close to the eastern site boundary which is to be retained. The external staircase and walkway, leading to the central access door to the office at first floor elevation level, is sited on the east facing side of the building facing The Retreat.

The distance between the elevation of The Retreat facing the site and the east elevation of the new building would be approximately 48 metres. Any views from the external walkway towards The Retreat would be across the roof of the retained agricultural building and through the boundary tree screen. It is acknowledged that there would be views of The Retreat from the new building, especially once the leaves have fallen from the trees in the autumn, and in this rural setting this would be noticeable. In an urban setting back to back, window to window, distances of 20 -22 metres are generally considered acceptable, and the distance involved here is twice that. Given the distance involved there would be no demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of occupants of The Retreat in respect of loss of privacy and or overlooking.

Highway Safety and ParkingThere would be no adverse impact from increased traffic movements Dorset CC _ Highways has raised no objection. It can be argued that the removal of the static mobile home would allow more space on site for the parking, turning and manoeuvring of vehicles.

ConclusionThe application should be refused as the proposal represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt contrary to the provisions of Core Strategy Policies HE2, KS3 and PC4. The proposal would provide staff facilities and a site office on the first floor above the replacement building. There is no inter-connection between the ground and first floor accommodation, as the staff and office facilities are proposed to be accessed by an external staircase which is visually intrusive and unnecessary. The design of the first floor office and staff accommodation is such that it has a domestic appearance and could easily be occupied as a separate unit of living accommodation. The applicant has not demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that the harm, by reason of its inappropriateness and any other harm is outweighed by the existence of any Very Special Circumstances.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-The above wording was incorrectly published. The Recommendation should read: “REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-”Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The proposed development for the erection of a replacement agricultural building to provide ground floor accommodation for agricultural purposes by and first floor staff accommodation for staff working on site at Forest Edge Nursery, is unacceptable by reason of its size and scale and the addition of the external staircase to access the first floor accommodation as it represents inappropriate development within the South East Dorset Green Belt contrary to the provisions of Polices KS3, HE2, and PC4 contained in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014. In addition, the proposal fails to reflect the advice contained in Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land' contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012, particularly that contained in part of Paragraph 89 which advises that: "the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;".

2 The proposed development of the site for the erection of a replacement agricultural building to provide ground floor accommodation for agricultural purposes; and first floor office and staff accommodation for staff working on site at Forest Edge Nursery, is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Very Special Circumstances that the applicant has put forward, are not considered by the Council to be sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by reason of its inappropriateness, namely:

the removal of the of the static mobile home from the site; that the Nursery office and staff facilities will be sited above the

agricultural building lessening the overall impact of the development on the Green Belt;

the new facilities will be of benefit to Nursery employees; This harm is also not outweighed by the other considerations put forward by the applicant in the application and the proposal is, therefore, contrary to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Paragraphs 79, 80, 88, 89 and 90, the provisions of Policies KS3, and PC4 contained in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014.

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 sought pre-application advice and was advised that the proposal was unlikely to prove acceptable.

2 The Council has had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies HE2, HE3, KS3, and PC4 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy 2014 were taken into account. Saved policies within the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, were also taken into account. These include specifically the following policies: Core Strategy Policies HE2, HE3, KS3, and PC4.

3. IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Plan & Council Objectives3.1. To ensure East Dorset’s natural and built environment is well managed.

Legal3.2. 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.

Environmental3.3. Any issues are contained within the body of this report.

Financial and Risk3.4. 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.

Equalities3.5. 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