Planning Committee 6 28th April, 2009 Schedule of Planning ...moderngoveddc.christchurchandeastdorset.gov.uk/Data/Planning... · Nbr-Nfn expired: 23 March 2009 Colehill Parish Council

1

Everyone 7 128 1715 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 1 0 57 rep_exe_IDsNo No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No NoENV1 28/04/2009 09:30:04 Chief Executive Old 52 1

East Dorset District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Item No 6

28th April, 2009 Public Report

Schedule of Planning Applications

Item for Decision: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.

Contributors Contact Officer

Chief Executive Michael Hirsh, Head of Planning & Building Control

Financial Implications: None Council Priorities: ENV1 Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that the applications contained in this

schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Head of Planning and Building Control's recommendation.

1. Applicable Lead Member Area(s) 1.1 Environment.

2. Crime and Disorder – Section 17 Implications 2.1 Where there is a specific crime and disorder matter that is a material planning

consideration, it will form part of the report related to the particular application.

3. Equalities Implications 3.1 Where there is a specific crime and disorder matter that is a material planning

consideration, it will form part of the report related to the particular application.

4. Risk Implications 4.1 There are no implications associated with this report.

5. Application Schedule 5.1

No. Application No. Site Address Pg.

1. 3/08/1407/FUL Bedborough Farm, Uddens Drive, Wimborne 2 2. 3/09/0096/FUL 134 Bridle Way, Colehill, Wimborne 5 3. 3/09/0108/FUL Plowmans Garden Nursery And Plant Centre Ltd, 392

Christchurch Road, West Parley 11

4. 3/09/0140/FUL 76 Lodge Road, Holt, Wimborne 14 5. 3/09/0166/FUL 24B Haviland Road, Ferndown Industrial Estate,

Wimborne 18

6. 3/09/0211/TEL Land At A348 Ringwood Road/Wimborne Road, Tricketts Cross - Roundabout, Ferndown

20

7. 3/09/0227/TEL A31 Ringwood Road /Monks Close, Lay By, West Moors 22

2

Item Number: 1. Ref:

3/08/1407/FUL

Proposal:

Construct New Vehicular Access (As revised by plans received 4th February, 12th February and revised application forms received 2nd March 2009)

Site Address: Bedborough Farm, Uddens Drive, Wimborne, for Mr S Dean

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (All)

Site Notice expired: 6 February 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 February 2009 Ferndown Town Council Comments:

Unable to comment as Committee inquorate

Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Liaison Officer

Before I can comment the following amendments should be noted:- Plan showing visibility splays is incorrect. Red line should be amended to include both the visibility splays. On Amended Plans: No objection

EDDC Tree Section No objection Neighbour Comments:

Bethany Johnson – No address provided

Object Heavy traffic concerns Inappropriate activities Out of keeping with Green Belt setting

Toby Johnson – No address provided

Object No real farm traffic No problem with visibility for real farm traffic Heavy traffic generated by excessive activities on site

Kit Johnson – No address provided

Object Green Belt New entrance not need Loss of trees

Tamara Johnson – No address provided

Object Green belt Out of keeping with area No farming activities exist here

Mr K & Mrs J Johnson Foresters, Uddens Drive

Object No farm animals so no need for new entrance Believes new access is needed for access from industrial park to leisure centre Loss of trees Flooding concerns Excessive traffic generated by their present activities

3

Safety issues will be debatable by moving the entrance 50 metres down the road Green Belt location

Officers Report: The item is brought to Committee as five letters of objection have been received and the recommendation is one of approval. Site Description Bedborough Farm is located off Uddens Drive. The holding is relatively large but presently not in farming use. The farm comprises a large covered yard and Dutch barn with associated smaller barns/stables and hardstanding. A large new agricultural type barn is presently being constructed to the north of the farm. Currently the farm is used for the operation of a landscaping business and paintball business, as well as a livery for horses. These uses are unauthorised and subject to enforcement investigation. To the south of the site, alongside the access is an area of land which was previously used by a Riding for Disabled Group; this is in the ownership of the applicant. The application site lies within the Green Belt and approximately 1 km (1.5km by tracks) from the boundary of designated heathlands at Whitesheet and the adjoining Holt Heath beyond. Access to the site is via a wide access track laid to gravel; this is adequate to serve the farm. Trees to the north of the existing access are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. History The farm was previously run as a dairy farm with cows kept in the covered yard. In 2003 a planning application for a large agricultural building to the north of the farm was approved under application 03/03/0916/FUL after the applicants provided a justification that the new building was needed for agricultural purpose. This permission remains live and is currently being implemented. Since 2005 the farm has been used for a number of purposes not related to farming; notably as a base for a landscaping business, the storage of boats, and a paintballing site. In 2007 a Certificate of Lawful Use was granted to use a piece of land, adjacent to the farm buildings for the ‘storage of lorries, buses, builders’ equipment and trailers’. A planning application (08/0508/COU) to retain the paintballing business was submitted last year and refused under the Council’s scheme of delegation on the basis that this was an inappropriate use in the Green Belt, would lead to a loss of trees (to improve the access and provide necessary visibility splays) and was located in an unsustainable location. A planning application 3/08/0509/COU to Retain Livery Business and Manege (Retrospective) was also refused. The site is currently under enforcement investigation. Proposal The proposal seeks to provide a new vehicular access approximately 40m to the south. This access will be 8m wide tapering to 5m wide. The first 8m will be finished in bituminous macadam with concrete edge kerbs, whereby. The new access will merge with the existing track; and the existing access closed. A number of trees have already been cleared. These trees were not subject to a TPO but the Forestry Commission was contacted as the amount of trees felled was substantial requiring the applicants to advise the Forestry Commission.

4

The applicant advises that ‘The proposal is due to the safety issues which exist as the current access does not provide a sufficient visibility splay.’ The current access provides a limited distance of visibility for both directions due to the raise in road level to the right of the existing access, and density of mature trees. The existing access does not meet current highways regulations, whereas the new access will provide a minimum of 120m visible splays in both directions.” Considerations The proposal provides adequate visibility and DCC Highways advise no objection subject to standard conditions ensuring the visibility splays are maintained. The use of the site as a farm is lawful as is the storage of builder’s material on part of that site covered by the above mentioned CLU. Notwithstanding the argument as to whether the access is reasonable and necessary given the unauthorised uses on the site, the planning test is confined to the effect of the proposal on the Green Belt and rural character of the area. The proposed access is 8 metres wide and includes the laying of a bituminous macadam finish with concrete kerbs. The proposed access would not be an unduly intrusive feature in the countryside and would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of this established rural road that lies within the South East Dorset Green Belt as designated in the East Dorset Local Plan. The proposal is on balance acceptable and in accordance with policies GB2 and CSIDE1 of the East Dorset Local Plan. A condition will be applied to ensure the existing access is closed and replanted. 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 existing access to the site from Uddens Drive shall be permanently stopped up

and abandoned upon construction of the new access in which respect details are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority prior to the new access being constructed, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 3 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the closed

access to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, if any, thereon, shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979), immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained

5

for five years during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to

protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality. Informatives: 1 In determining this application the local planning authority have paid regard to

guidance contained within PPG2 (Green Belts) and PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas).

Policy Considerations and Reasons In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: GB2 CSIDE1


3/09/0096/FUL

Proposal:

Demolish Existing Garage, Sever Plot and Erect New Semi Detached 2 Bedroom House

Site Address: 134 Bridle Way, Colehill, Wimborne, for Mrs A Hoyland

Constraints Urban Area BIA90m Birdstrike Windfarm

Site Notice expired: 27 March 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 23 March 2009 Colehill Parish Council Comments:

Objection: Out of character Overdevelopment Inadequate parking spaces provided


Nothing further to add to 08/1228

Neighbour Comments:

Mrs I Rew 124 Bridle Way, Colehill

Object Access/entrance to cul-de-sac and parking difficulties. At present all vehicles leave on wrong side of the road due to parked cars. Spoil character and appearance of cul-de-sac.

J & D Butt 122 Bridle Way, Colehill

Object Out and character and appearance

6

Over development of site Detrimental to character and appearance of area Safety concerns regarding parking Reduce visibility for cars exiting cul-de-sac Will create a precedent Lack of privacy Proposed development will overlook garden

Mr R Preston 5 Halter Rise, Colehill

Object Out of character Highly visible Overlooking Create serious parking problems Set a precedent Loss of trees

Peter Guest 77 Bridle Way, Colehill

Object Out of keeping Over-dominant Parking and traffic concerns

J & K Ryan 132 Bridle Way, Colehill

Object Out of character with area Overdevelopment of plot Loss of public car parking spaces Safety hazard as cars will be forced to park near dangerous bend with restricted visibility exiting cul-de-sac Set a precedent for area Flooding concerns Overlooking concerns Loss of trees and shrubs

Mr P Small 1 Halter Rise, Colehill, Wimborne,

Totally out of character, more cars for an already compact cul-de-sac.

Dr Michael Dye 79 Bridle Way,, Colehill,

1. I'm concerned that factual errors continue to be present in the submission. They existing house has 4 bedrooms; like all the ones around it; including ours. So why say 3 in the submission? I wonder what they're advertising with the Estate Agents who are dealing with the sale? (as the "for sale" board is still up). Additionally the present off-road parking is 4 spaces; not 2. That's counting the garage; but that's sensible isn't it? Factual errors concern me - if those are wrong, why? What else is being mis-represented? Obvious errors like this surely cause a closer investigation?2. Reduction in parking; probably causing excessive on-road parking. By increasing the housing density and removing some road-side parking there are bound to be more cars on the roads. The cul-de-sac is already crowded at weekends and Bridle Way cannot be used for any more parking - anyone who spent any time here would see that the bend allows only 1-side parking and that is occupied regularly. Recently there have been two accidents outside our property; more parked vehicles would only increase

7

this. 3. Removal of garage. All properties in this immediate vicinity have garages. By creating two properties without garages this would be setting an unwanted precedent. 4. Overlooking. The proposed new house has a front door immediately opposite ourselves. This is a major change to the layout of the houses (the present back door is shielded by the existing garage). This estate has been well designed with reasonable layouts and spacing; the squeezing in of another house would severely disrupt this.

Mr R J Rew 124 Bridleway, Colehill

Object Out of Keeping Parking Restrictions, deliveries and access already prohibitive. Loss of grass of shrubs. There are anomalies and inaccuracies with the application.

Mr D J Burrell 128 Bridle Way, Wimborne

Object Parking restrictions and potential hazards e.g. single vehicle bottleneck. Not in Keeping Loss of Grass and Shrub areas Anomalies with the application

Mike Bartlett 16 Halter Rise, Wimborne,

Demolishing the garage will put cars on to a compact cul de sac and then the proposed house could increase this to the extent that cars will have to be parked on Bridle Way on bend where 4 cars have already been damaged! This unnecessary development will have an impact upon the existing compact infrastructure

Mr M Barrett 130 Bridle Way, Colehill

Object Loss of parking spaces Cul-de-sac exit is hazardous and visibility severely restricted Out of keeping with surrounding properties Loss of grass and shrub areas

Officers Report: This application comes to committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval, the Parish Council has objected and there have been 11 letters of objection received on the date that this report was written. The main concerns arising from these submissions are; loss of on-street parking; out of keeping with the area; adverse impact on highway safety; overlooking of adjacent properties; loss of green space; overdevelopment and inadequate parking spaces provided. The proposal is to demolish the existing double garage adjacent to the north elevation of the house and construct a two storey dwelling with pitched and gabled roof attached to the house at 134 Bridle Way. The ridge of the roof will follow the same line as the ridge of the existing house (north to south). Two on-site parking spaces will be formed to the front of the new dwelling, with two on-site spaces to the front of 134.

8

The proposal follows a refused application for a detached two storey dwelling under application 08/1228. This dwelling also replaced the double garage, and had the gable end of the roof facing the cul-de-sac, with the ridge running from east to west. The reason for refusal related to the cramped relationship between the new dwelling and 134; the new dwelling would not relate well to its context due to its depth, and a bland and bulky side elevation would be presented which would be readily viewed from the north. An additional reason for this application being rejected was it failed to provide the necessary contribution or undertaking to provide the contribution in respect of the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009. The main issues for the proposal are considered to be the impact on the street scene, impact on highway safety and impact on heathlands designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Impact on street scene The new dwelling will have the appearance of a two storey extension, and is subservient to the main dwelling in scale, with a lower ridge and its front wall set back from the front wall of 134. The existing double garage will be removed, which allow a greater space for landscaping between the side of the new dwelling and the footway to the north. The external part of the first floor of the new dwelling is to be rendered and painted with the lower section constructed of face brick. Using appropriate bricks and colour of render will ensure the external surfaces of the new house match 134. The new dwelling will result in additional two storey built form coming further towards the north boundary of the application site. It will also reduce single storey built form by removing the garage, which will allow greater open space between buildings. The site is in a prominent position in the area, and the scale and design proposed are considered appropriate, with the new dwelling appearing as an extension to the main dwelling. The provision of two parking spaces at the front of the new dwelling with a strip for soft landscaping between them and the dwelling will allow scope for soft landscaping to the side (north) of the dwelling. The proposed spaces for 134 do not require planning permission, however they are as a consequence of the proposal. The area around these spaces has space for soft landscaping and the resulting visual impact is considered acceptable. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the street scene, and no adverse visual impact will result. Policies HODEV1 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002 are considered to have been complied with therefore. Impact on highway safety The proposal will provide two on-site parking spaces for the new dwelling and also two for no. 134. The new parking arrangements will prevent parking of vehicles on the road in front of the application site and this is likely to result in the loss of on-street parking for two cars.

9

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport (2001) advised Local Planning Authorities to revise their parking standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision. In light of this Officers generally accept that two on-site parking spaces per new dwelling are acceptable. The loss of spaces in the road outside the application site is not considered to be a reason to refuse the application, and it is unlikely that an appeal against a refusal on this basis would be successful. Dorset County Council’s Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal, and the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety. Other matters No significant overlooking of adjacent dwellings is foreseen from the proposal on account of the separation distance between first floor windows in the new dwelling and windows and gardens of adjacent dwellings. Additionally the immediate area is suburban in character where a degree of overlooking between properties is to be expected. There is no Tree Preservation Order to prevent the loss of the tree and vegetation on the site’s boundaries that some of the objectors make reference to. The proposal will provide hedging planted in front of a wall/fence around the new dwelling’s rear and side boundary as annotated on the ground floor plan, and this will help soften the new development and replace the lost vegetation. Impact on heathlands designated as SSSIs The site lies between 400m and 5km from several Sites of Special Scientific Interest of international importance (SSSI). Therefore an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations 1994 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 such as the application 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 Interim Strategy 2006-2009 which will provide mitigation against the impacts of new dwellings on the heathland. The Strategy requires a financial contribution from the applicant to go towards funding the mitigation measures. Provided the applicants submit the required contribution, no objection would be raised with regard to the impact of the scheme on the SSSIs. The applicant has submitted a unilateral undertaking and has recently paid the financial mitigation required by the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2006-2009. The application is compliant with the requirements of the Framework and Policy NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002. Recommendation:


Conditions/Reasons:-

10

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


2 The materials and finishes to be used for the external faces of the dwelling hereby

permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling at 134 Bridle Way unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

existing. 3 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of the site,

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

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to

protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality. 4 The proposed facilities for the on-site parking of motor vehicles to serve both the

existing and proposed dwelling shall be provided prior to the occupation of the new dwelling and thereafter retained.

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

highway safety. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no extension to the new property or alteration to its roof shall be constructed without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: To prevent an overdevelopment of the site.

Informatives: 1 In the determination of the application regard was had to the advice set out in PPG13:

Transport (2001). Policy Considerations and Reasons In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: HODEV1 DES8 TRANS2 TRAN10

11


3/09/0108/FUL

Proposal:

Retrospective planning application for the erection of two structures (railway station and store) and the laying of miniature railway track

Site Address: Plowmans Garden Nursery And Plant Centre Ltd, 392 Christchurch Road, West Parley, for Mr V Plowman

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (All) Green Belt LP

Site Notice expired: 10 April 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 8 April 2009 West Parley Parish Council Comments:

We object on basis that miniature railway is not an intrinsic part of a retail garden centre. In addition to this being inappropriate and unnecessary development, the proposed 'botanical garden' would appear also to be in conflict with policies of local plan and PPS in relation to Green Belt. We feel this is yet another step towards converting this horticultural site into a theme park, which contravenes the owners stated aims.

Consultee Responses: Safeguarding Officer County Highways Development Liaison Officer

No objection.

EDDC Public Health - Housing And Pollution

No comments.

Neighbour Comments:

N P Dampney 390 Christchurch Road, West Parley

Object Proposal is not conductive to the trading or business of a Nursery & Plant Centre and that the words "miniature railway track" do not convey the true size of application Railway will be in form of a visitor attraction and entertainment Green Belt concerns

Mr B Ross - No address provided

Support Railway hidden from road so no distraction to motorists.

Officers Report: This application is on the agenda because of the nature of this somewhat unusual application and the previous planning history of the site.

12

Plowman's Nursery on the south side of Christchurch Road in West Parley has an extensive range of buildings which are typical of a garden centre. These have been augmented recently by a miniature railway and wooden buildings used as a store for the engines and carriages and a covered railway station. This is, therefore, a retrospective application to retain this unauthorised development which has been undertaken on this site. As accepted during the course of a recent appeal the planning status of the premises, as described by the Inspector, is " a mixed use as a nursery and for retail sales of bought in produce". It was further accepted by that Inspector, that ‘the mixed use now lawful on this holding is not appropriate within the Green Belt’. The wooden station building measures 31.5m. x 7.0m with a height of 2.3m. and the store is 21.5m x 4.5m. with a height of 3.0m. They can not be seen from the road. The railway track runs in a loop, which is approximately 480 metres long, to the south of the main complex of garden centre/nursery buildings around a currently featureless grassed piece of land. It is envisaged that the trains will run on weekends and Bank Holidays from 11.00am to 4.00pm. The track itself does not have any adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The two buildings must inevitably be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt and, thus, constitute inappropriate development. The Government's Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) "Green Belts" makes it absolutely clear that inappropriate development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. This development does not fall within any of the categories of development which are set out in PPG2. As inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt PPG2 states quite unequivocally that : "It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted". The justification which is put forward by the applicant consists mainly of the following arguments : a) There is no harm to the openness of the Green Belt because it can not be seen from Christchurch Road; b) It will provide employment, bring trade to the area and strengthen the economy; c) It will increase visitor numbers to the garden centre, notwithstanding the assertion that "The miniature railway is not an attraction in its own right." d) The character and appearance of the Green Belt will be enhanced as a result of the planting of a botanical garden through which the railway will pass. The degree of visibility of developments in the Green Belt is not the correct test of detriment to openness and none of the other matters come close to satisfying the test of "special circumstances". Members should be aware of a relevant appeal decision in this district on this issue. An open sided canopy was recently dismissed on appeal at Stewarts Garden Centre and Nursery (3/06/1502) on 11 February 2009 following a challenge by the Council to an earlier decision to allow the appeal. The circumstances in terms of impact on the openness of the Green Belt are the same. The Inspector said : "From a Green Belt point of view I accept that set against the scale of the building to which the new canopy would be attached and its inconspicuous siting, the additional covering

13

would be quite discrete. Nevertheless there are no arguments in PPG2 to suggest that smallness need not necessarily impact on openness..." The Inspector was also not convinced that the two additional jobs which were being suggested would result from this extension of the business would materialise. The statement accompanying this application states that : "The railway is only part of a comprehensive package of improvements. Specific features and designs for gardens will be created along the path of the railway, this will help visitors imagine and place certain features and plants in their gardens that are sold by Plowmans Garden Centre." Whilst the trains have been bought, the track laid and buildings erected this element of the "comprehensive package" has not been undertaken. The train rides have no current relationship to the garden nursery as described in the statement, other than location. There is also reference to other garden centres with miniature railways and the railway at Moors Valley Country Park. Clearly, the local planning authority has no knowledge of the garden centres which are mentioned. Moors Valley is an entirely different undertaking. It is an extensive Country Park which has a wide range of facilities. The main engine shed associated with the railway at Moors Valley derived from an existing building which has been modified to its current use. There is no comparison between the scale of Moors Valley Country Park and the application site. Moors Valley Country Park covers an extensive recreational area in excess of 500 ha whilst Plowmans Garden Nursery is more intensive commercial development covering 3.8 ha. In summary, therefore, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the lack of any "special circumstances" must inevitably result in a recommendation that planning permission be refused. Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

Reasons:- 1 The erection of the covered station and storage building associated with the railway is

inappropriate development which is detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. Its harm is not outweighed by any very special circumstances. The application conflicts with the guidance provided by the Government in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 "Green Belts".

Informatives: 1 In determining this application the local planning authority has taken into account the

advice set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 "Green Belts". 2 The justification for granting planning permission which has been put forward has

been careful consideration by the local planning authority but it does not overcome the need to safeguard the openness of the Green Belt.

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

14


3/09/0140/FUL

Proposal:

Erect Two Storey Front Extension, Two Storey and Single Storey Rear Extension Including Balcony, Replacement Attached Garage and Front and Rear Rooflights to Facilitate Loft Conversion. (As amended by plans received 12/03/09)

Site Address: 76 Lodge Road, Holt, Wimborne, for Mr K Forward

Constraints Green Belt LP Groundwater Protection Zone Village infilling Policy Areas LP

Site Notice expired: 25 March 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 19 March 2009 Holt Parish Council Comments:

No objection, however we are concerned about the attached garage. Also the building appears to be 3 storey which gives a visual impression of 'bulk' which may appear dominant on the neighbours. the bulk of the extension could perhaps be reduced by the roof being hipped.


Nothing further to add to previous observation dated 9 Dec 08 pertaining to previous application 3/08/1323

EDDC Tree Section No objection Neighbour Comments:

Mr & Mrs P D Griffiths 74 Lodge Road, Holt

Object Virtually the same as first application. Rear ext. size, bulk & height overpowering. Gable end over 3m above roofline of our property. Contravenes Green Belt, GB7 & DES8 Concerns over balcony Overlooking Reduce light and sunlight Loss of amenities

Mrs P B Isaacs 78 Lodge Road, Holt

Support

Mr and Mrs Ann Korta 72 Lodge Road, Holt

Support Overdue for updating and modernising

Mr R & Mrs M Skinner Lodge Hill Farm, Lodge Road

Object Overlooking concerns, loss of privacy

Officers Report: The item is put to the Committee as matters remain finely balanced.

15

Site Description The property comprises a house situated within the Village Infilling Area for Holt. The property to the west is a bungalow; while to the east are a number of houses. Within the front garden, close to the access, is a large tree subject to a tree preservation order. History A previous planning application of a materially similar nature (3/08/1074/FUL) was withdrawn on the advice of officers. A second application (3/08/1323/FUL), again materially similar to this one, was refused for the following two reasons. (1) The proposed alterations and extensions to this property which include the conversion of its roof space to form additional living accommodation would appear unduly prominent in its street scene context and will adversely affect the character of the village form, contrary to Policies GB7 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan. (2) Furthermore, the scale, bulk and height of the rear three storey extension, will appear overbearing in relation to no 74 Lodge Road, causing a loss of amenity to the residents, contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan. Proposal The proposal involves significant alterations to the property. It is proposed to erect a single storey garage and utility room extension to the west elevation. To the rear a new two storey wing is proposed with a single storey sun room alongside, the roof of which will be utilised as a balcony. At second floor level within the roof three rooms will be formed lit by rooflights and a gable window in the rear wing. On the front elevation a two storey extension is proposed, forming a new entrance porch with bathroom above. Three rooflights are shown on the front elevation. The application varies from that previously refused by way of the ridge of the rear extension being reduced 100mm, the moving of a ground floor window on the east elevation, and the rooflights on the front elevation being reduced and modified. Considerations The site is within the Village Infilling Area (Green Belt) and therefore Policy GB7 applies; this provides support for development that does not adversely affect the character of the area. Two letters of support have been received with two of objection both concerned at overlooking from the balcony, and the mass and impact of the proposal. Key issues for consideration are the impact of the proposal on the streetscene, and secondly the impact on the amenity of neighbours. Size and mass of the proposal and its impact in the public domain There is no objection to the front extension which adds relief to a bland frontage; equally the garage and utility room and single storey sunroom are unobjectionable in themselves. Part of the previous reason for refusal related to the conversion of its roof space to form additional living accommodation as the fenestration would appear unduly prominent in its street scene context and adversely affect the character of the village form, contrary to Policies GB7 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan. The ridge height of the rear wing has been reduced marginally by 100mm, however the extensive rooflights on the front elevation as previously proposed have been amended to three in total. This change on the front elevation allows the property to continue to be read as a two storey property in the streetscene and reduces the affect on the character of the village form. The changes proposed, although minimal, allow officers, on balance, to support the proposal under Policies GB7 and DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan.

16

Amenity of neighbours The second consideration is the effect of development on the amenity of neighbours in terms of privacy and potential overmassing. In terms of privacy there are no side windows on the west elevation, whilst the 2nd floor windows on the east elevation are to be obscure glazed with fan light opening. Subject to these obscure windows being retained by condition there will be no overlooking of no 74 Lodge Road. At second floor on the rear elevation is a triangular feature window lighting the bathroom, this is obscure glazed and has a high sill height to retain modesty. This window will not compromise the amenity of the neighbour at no 74 Lodge Road. The first floor balcony above the sunroom will be screened on the east side by the flank wall of the wing extension, while an obscure glazed screen 1.8m in height will ensure there is no overlooking to the west. (This could be again secured by condition). It is considered that these factors combine to ensure there is no substantial overlooking of the neighbouring properties. An objection has been received from Holt Lodge Farm, concerned that the balcony will overlook their property. Given this property is 100m to the west and buffered by three other residential properties an objection cannot be sustained. Previously concerns were raised as to the scale, bulk and height of the rear three storey extensions, which would appear overbearing in relation to no 74 Lodge Road, causing a loss of amenity to the residents, contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan. The recommendation of refusal was ‘on balance’. It was not assisted by inaccurate information provided by the applicant's agent, notably the footprint of the neighbouring property No. 74 Lodge Road was shown as smaller than it actually is. Since the refusal the applicant has attempted to reduce the impact of this wing through the reduction in the ridge height of 100mm; it is considered that this reduction is minimal. Officers would have preferred a narrower width to the rear wing, bringing the height down further to make it more subservient. No. 74 Lodge Road extends further to the rear and its flank wall is screened by a tall bamboo hedge, approximately 5-6 metres high, which is in the control of the owners. On the basis of the above it is considered that the rear wing would, on balance, not appear so overbearing in relation to no 74 Lodge Road, given that this would now be the only reason for refusal outstanding and the building height has been marginally reduced. In terms of the potential for loss of light the proposal is located in line with No.74 and as such would not cause a demonstrable loss of direct of indirect sunlight. The proposal is therefore on balance in accordance with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan. Trees The Council’s Tree Section advises that no objections are raised. Whilst the tree at the entrance is subject to a TPO a protective fence is not required as the ground has already being compacted over time. Equally such a fence would block access to the drive and would lead to the removal of the frontage hedge to gain access. Highways DCC acting as Highways Authority raise no objections to the proposal subject to standard conditions. Bats

17

As the development includes work to the roof the standard bat informative would be applied if the Council were minded to grant approval. Summary The revised plans show important amendments to the front elevation from the scheme previously refused and small alterations to the rear. It is considered that these, on balance, overcome previous concerns. Recommendation:





2 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the development,

hereby permitted, shall be identical in every respect to those of the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

existing. 3 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the first floor windows on

the south-east elevation, and gable end window at second floor on the north east elevation (such expression to include the roof) shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of overlooking. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further fenestration or door shall be installed in the said elevations, or anywhere else on the roof of the building, without express planning permission.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining property. 4 Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the obscure glazed

screen and screen wall to the terrace shall be constructed as per the approved plans and maintained thereafter. Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, no further alterations to the screens shall be made without express planning permission.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining property. 5 Prior to the commencement of development, the first 4.5 metres of the access

crossing, measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway, shall be laid out, constructed, hardened and surfaced, to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

18

6 Before the development hereby authorised is commenced, details of vehicular parking and manoeuvring facilities within the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The parking and manoeuvring facilities shall then be completed in all respects in accordance with those details before the development is brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Informatives: 1 The applicant is advised that for applications such as this, which involve works to the

roof of the existing property where bats may be present, Natural England has advised that the development should not proceed unless and until it has been demonstrated that the works would not have an adverse impact on bats which are a protected species. In this regard, the applicant is advised to contact Natural England to arrange for the building on the site to be surveyed by a suitably qualified person (a free service for householders). Further information may be found on the following website www.naturalengland.org.uk.

2 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the

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

Policy Considerations and Reasons In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8 GB7


3/09/0166/FUL

Proposal:

Demolition of Existing 10.0m x 3.0m Reception Unit and Replace with 1 no 12.1m x 3.0m Open Plan Single Storey Office and 1 no 3.6m x 2.7m Open Plan Unit, Connected to Main Unit with a 1.8m x 600mm Link

Site Address: 24B Haviland Road, Ferndown Industrial Estate, Wimborne, for Mr L Cass

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (45m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Employment Infilling Area LP Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 3 April 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 27 March 2009 Ferndown Town Council No objection

19

Comments: Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Liaison Officer

Neighbour Comments: Officers Report: This application is brought to Committee as the proposal is development by this Council. This proposal is to demolish and remove the existing 10 metre by 3 metre portacabin type reception building on this Council’s Haviland Road Depot site and replace it with a 12 metre by 3 metre prefabricated office linked to a 3.6 metre by 2.7 metre reception office. The site is within the Ferndown Industrial Estate. The offices are against the rearmost part of the western side boundary some 80 metres from the highway and approached through an extensive forecourt area of staff car parking. The site is open in nature, with industrial uses and buildings across the side boundaries. The relevant Local Plan Policy is INDEV1. This states that industrial development will be permitted within the limits of the established industrial estates, including Ferndown. The current use as a council depot is appropriate within this context, as is the existing ancillary office use and the proposed replacement facility. It will not be prominent from the public highway due to its distance and has less visual impact than the surrounding development. There are no amenity implications for the adjoining occupiers and the replacement offices are of a form of ancillary accommodation commonly associated with industrial sites. For all of these reasons the proposal is considered to accord with Policies DES8 and INDEV1 of the Local Plan. Recommendation:





Policy Considerations and Reasons In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: DES8 INDEV1

20


3/09/0211/TEL

Proposal:

12M High Telecommunication Monopole with 3 Antennae Together with Ground Level Equipment Cabinet as amended by plans rec'd 14.4.09

Site Address: Land At A348 Ringwood Road/Wimborne Road, Tricketts Cross - Roundabout, Ferndown, for Vodafone

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (15m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) County Distributor Road LP District Distributor Road LP Urban Areas LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 15 April 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 8 April 2009 Ferndown Town Council Comments:

No Objection


No Objection Informative note provided

Neighbour Comments: Officers Report: This proposal is for the Local Planning Authority to consider, within 56 days, the siting and appearance of a 12m high galvanised monopole telecommunications mast with antennae at the top (overall height of 14.3m), together with ground based equipment cabinet measuring 1300mm tall, 500mm deep and 1900mm wide painted holly green. The application is not a planning application and only siting and appearance may be considered. There is no provision to impose conditions, and if approval is granted, the development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It is considered that prior approval of the siting and appearance of the proposed mast is required. However the details submitted with the application are acceptable to allow a decision to be made on these matters. The installation is required to provide 3rd Generation (3G) telecommunications coverage for Vodafone, in addition to increasing this coverage to the Tricketts Cross area, which covers the eastern area of Ferndown. It will also enable local residents, businesses and other users to use high resolution video, multi-media and internet based applications. The existing Vodafone installations within Ferndown cannot provide sufficient operational levels of 3G coverage to this area, and therefore a new installation is needed. 14 alternative sites were investigated during the site search process to include sharing existing masts in the area. The nearest options to the application site were sharing the existing monopole adjacent to the roundabout that joins Turbary Road opposite the shops; installation of a monopole near these shops; and installation of a monopole adjacent to the

21

dual carriageway to the south west of Tricketts Cross Roundabout. Other options included sites at Lidl, Norman Motors, McDonalds, David Phipp Furnishings and Sainsburys. Sharing a monopole or ‘street works’ installation is not possible so this option was ruled out; there was insufficient space for a new monopole near the shops and this was not as visually acceptable as the current proposal; the site adjacent to the dual carriageway was refused by Members in 2004 (application 04/0250); and Lidl, Norman Motors, McDonalds and David Phipp were not interested in the proposal. The Sainsburys option was on land that was lower than the rest of the coverage area and was unsuitable. The application includes a certificate that the installation will meet the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), as required for a Prior Approval application. This certificate confirms that the cumulative emissions of electromagnetic fields resulting from the proposed installation, and others near, it is within the ICNIRP guidelines. In this regard the advice set out in PPG8 does not require the Local Planning Authority to consider the health impacts further. The proposed monopole is to be sited on the grassed verge to the north of the eastern traffic island next to Tricketts Cross roundabout. This is to the south of the woodland area adjacent to Sainsburys fuel filling station. The monopole will be 6m from the carriageway edge and 5.4m from the footpath. It will be viewed in the context of the existing 8m high street lamp posts, against a backdrop of trees. It is considered that the presence of the lamp posts will allow the monopole’s visual impact to be minimised and the ground based equipment cabinet is of a suitable scale and appearance to sit comfortably in this urban situation. Additionally the site maintains a reasonable separation distance with residential property to prevent any adverse impact on outlook. Concern has been raised during the application regarding possible interference with digital equipment. PPG8 advises that wireless telegraphy legislation requires all users of radio equipment to avoid creating undue interference with other radio users, and their equipment must be designed to minimise it. This advice states that in most cases questions of potential interference are of no relevance to the determination of planning applications, as other controls are available to deal with radio interference problems. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed installation will result in interference to other radio users, and should interference arise, Ofcom may be consulted to undertake an Interference Investigation. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its siting and appearance and accords with the advice set out in PPG8. Therefore approval is recommended. Recommendation:

GRANT

Informatives: 1 Regard was had to the advice set out in PPG8: Telecommunications (2001) in the

determination of the application. 2 The applicant should be advised that licences from the Local Highway Authority will

have to be obtained for the erection of any columns on highway land and for any structure overhanging the public footway. The Area Highways Manager (East) should be consulted. He can be contacted at the Area Office (East), Stour Park, Blandford St Mary, Dorset, DT11 9LQ (Tel: 01258 450048).

22

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


3/09/0227/TEL

Proposal:

15m Tall Telecommunications Monopole Mast with 3 Antennae on Top, Equipment Cabinet at Base as amended by plans received 2/4/09 to Install 300mm Diameter Transmission Dish Below Antennae.

Site Address: A31 Ringwood Road /Monks Close , Lay By, West Moors, for Vodafone

Constraints Airport Safeguarding (15m high) Airport Safeguarding (Birdstrike) Green Belt LP Windfarm Consultation Zone

Site Notice expired: 21 April 2009 Advert expired: Nbr-Nfn expired: 15 April 2009 West Moors Parish Council Comments:

No objection


No objection

Highways Agency Neighbour Comments:

Mr T Moss 10 Monks Close, West Moors

Object Close to residential properties Health risk unknown Further devalue home

Amanda Johnson 7 Monks Close, West Moors

Object Mast is very close to houses within Monks Close.

Mrs L Corner 8 Monks Close, West Moors

Object Request it is sited further away from our properties.

S Cooper 18 Monks Close, West Moors

Object Out of keeping with area Health concerns

Mr & Mrs Sargeant 20 Monks Close, West Moors

Object Health concerns Out of keeping with green belt

23

Interference with digital equipment Further letter of objection received 16.4.09 in response to amended plans: Nothing has changed, still object.

Mr & Mrs M Brewer 16 Monks Close, West Moors

Object Health concerns especially for children Effect on property values Interference with other received signals Target for vandals with attendant health and safety issues. Eyesore Possible legal action on Council and Telecoms. CompaniesWhy the need for an additional mast? Further letter of objection received 16.4.09 in response to amended plans: Latest amendment has made things worse.

Mr David Hughes 14 Monks Close, West Moors

Object Health concerns Height and unsightly

E G Cook & Mrs A J Cook 1 Monks Close, West Moors

Object Unsightly structure in rural position Health concerns Further letter rec'd 14.4.09 Complete eyesore for houses backing onto the layby Why can't mast be erected further along the A31 at the next lay by?

Officers Report: This proposal is for the Local Planning Authority to consider, within 56 days, the siting and appearance of a 15m high galvanised monopole telecommunications mast with antennae at the top (overall height of 17.3m), together with ground based equipment cabinet measuring 1300mm tall, 500mm deep and 1900mm wide painted holly green. The application is not a planning application and only siting and appearance may be considered. There is no provision to impose conditions, and if approval is granted, the development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It is considered that prior approval of the siting and appearance of the proposed mast is required. However the details submitted with the application are acceptable to allow a decision to be made on these matters. The site lies in the Green Belt and represents inappropriate development for the purposes of the advice set out in PPG2: Telecommunications. The proposal will result in some loss of openness from the physical presence of the monopole and equipment cabinet, however this will not be significant. The lack of suitable alternative sites to meet the needs of network coverage as detailed below is considered to represent very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the green belt and permit the proposal.

24

The installation is required to provide 3rd Generation (3G) telecommunications coverage for Vodafone, in addition to increasing this coverage to the eastern area of West Moors. It will also enable local residents, businesses and other users to use high resolution video, multi-media and internet based applications. The existing Vodafone installations within the immediate area cannot provide sufficient operational levels of 3G coverage to this area, and therefore a new installation is needed. Ten alternative sites were investigated during the site search process. The nearest options to the application site were; installation of a monopole at the A38/A348 roundabout; installation of a monopole outside Sainsburys fuel filling station; installing equipment on electricity pylons off Humber Rd, Ferndown; land at St Leonards Farm and land at West Moors Plantation. Other options included sites at Lidl, McDonalds and David Phipp Furnishings. The A38/A348 roundabout site is less elevated than the proposed site, and would need a taller mast to provide the required coverage; the Sainsburys fuel filling station site is on lower land than the proposal, and an equipment cabinet may restrict pedestrian access; the West Moors Plantation site does not offer coverage that is a good as the proposed site. St Leonards Farm, the electricity provider, Lidl, McDonalds and David Phipp were not interested in the proposal. The Sainsburys option was on land that was lower than the rest of the coverage area and was unsuitable. The application includes a certificate that the installation will meet the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), as required for a Prior Approval application. This certificate confirms that the cumulative emissions of electromagnetic fields resulting from the proposed installation, and others near, it is within the ICNIRP guidelines. In this regard the advice set out in PPG8 does not require the Local Planning Authority to consider the health impacts further. The proposed monopole is to be sited on the grassed verge to the north of the Ringwood Road. It will be between two mature deciduous trees, with other trees existing to the north and south west. A lay by serving the Ringwood Road is immediately to the north and there are several lamp posts close to the site. The monopole will be 6.5m from the carriageway edge of Ringwood Road and 10.5m from the nearest edge of the carriageway edge of the lay by. It will be viewed in the context of the existing trees and 8m high lamp posts, against a backdrop of trees. It is considered that the presence of the lamp posts and trees will allow the monopole’s visual impact to be minimised and the ground based equipment cabinet is of a suitable scale and appearance to sit comfortably in this situation. Additionally the site maintains a reasonable separation distance with residential property to prevent any adverse impact on outlook. Concern has been raised during the application regarding possible interference with digital equipment. PPG8 advises that wireless telegraphy legislation requires all users of radio equipment to avoid creating undue interference with other radio users, and their equipment must be designed to minimise it. This advice states that in most cases questions of potential interference are of no relevance to the determination of planning applications, as other controls are available to deal with radio interference problems. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed installation will result in interference to other radio users, and should interference arise, Ofcom may be consulted to undertake an Interference Investigation.

25

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its siting and appearance and accords with the advice set out in PPG8. Therefore approval is recommended. Recommendation:

GRANT

Informatives: 1 Regard was had to the advice set out in PPG8: Telecommunications (2001) in the

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

6. Appendices 6.1 None.

7. Background Papers 7.1 Planning application and history files relating to each application.

Documents

Planning Committee 6 28th April, 2009 Schedule of Planning ...moderngoveddc.christchurchandeastdorset.gov.uk/Data/Planning... · Nbr-Nfn expired: 23 March 2009 Colehill Parish Council