BOROUGH OF POOLE PLANNING COMMITTEE 19 OCTOBER 2017 BOROUGH OF POOLE PLANNING COMMITTEE 19 OCTOBER 2017

Transcription

1 BOROUGH OF POOLE PLANNING COMMITTEE 19 OCTOBER 2017 The Meeting commenced at 1:00pm and concluded at 4.23pm. Present: Councillor Garner-Watts (Chairman) Councillor Parker (Vice-Chairman) Councillors: Burden (until 4pm), Le Poidevin, Mellor, Tindle (until 3.50pm), Williams (until 4pm) and G Wilson Others in Attendance Councillors: Mrs Haines and Stribley Members of the public present: Approximately 21 PC33.17 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bagwell. PC34.17 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest. Other interests Members wished to be recorded Councillors Mellor and Williams had been lobbied on Plans List Item No. 1. Councillors Garner-Watts, Parker, Burden, Le Poidevin, Mellor, Williams and G Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Items Nos. 4 and 5. Councillor Burden declared an interest in Plans List Item No. 7 as the Application Site was near a Councillor s home. PC35.17 MINUTES RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 7 September 2017, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, and confirmed and signed as a correct record. 1

2 PC36.17 PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Committee considered the Planning Applications as set out in the Schedule to the Minutes and dealt with therein. PC37.17 PLANNING APPEALS RECEIVED AND PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED The Information Report was noted. PC38.17 SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION There was no urgent business. CHAIRMAN 2

3 SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE 19 OCTOBER 2017 ITEM NO 01 APPLICATION NO. APP/16/01869/P APPLICATION TYPE Outline SITE ADDRESS 109 Commercial Road, Poole, BH14 0JD PROPOSALS Outline application to partially demolish, rebuild and refurbish No.109 Commercial Road; demolish existing building at No.109a Commercial Road and erect a replacement building to form a retail unit and 9 flats with cycle and refuse stores (Amended plans received 10/08/2017) REGISTERED 4 January, 2017 APPLICANT Mr Shukla AGENT Sibbett Gregory WARD Parkstone CONSERVATION AREA Ashley Cross CASE OFFICER Steve Llewellyn The Application was before Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Stribley because of the issues of parking; servicing; and access arrangements associated with the proposed development. Steve Llewellyn, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area. The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, pre-application advice, consultations, planning considerations and judgement. Lee Smith, Transportation Services, stated that the main concern was zero parking. According to the Borough of Poole s SPD, the proposed development should have 8 car parking spaces. He added that there would be a reasonable prospect of car ownership amongst the residents of the Scheme. Mr Smith stated that it would not be appropriate to rely on utilising the car park opposite the Site. In summary, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed development would positively contribute to the Ashley Cross Conservation Area visually; and would protect neighbouring amenities. However, the absence of on-site parking provision would lead to an increase in parking demands in the area that would prejudice highway safety to an unacceptable degree due to indiscriminate parking taking place in unsafe locations and would be likely to compromise rear servicing and impact upon the viability, success and function of the Ashley Cross Local Centre. The proposals were therefore contrary to adopted planning policies and these concerns would not be outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development. The Application was therefore recommended for Refusal. Mr Brown, Applicant, expressed his views, details included: Reminded Members of the decision to approve flats on the former Black and White Cars Site 3

4 Was willing to work with the Council regarding the link road at the rear, however, neither the Highways Department or Estates would enter into talks As a result, had proposed a Scheme that discouraged vehicles Had talked to Planning Officers for 10 months prior to submitting the Application Too little parking was worse than no parking at all Would make it very clear to purchasers that there would be no parking provision Car owners would not be interested in such a scheme Very good bus/train and cycle links Low cost housing Sustainable location Quoted the NPP5 Ward Councillor Mrs Stribley, expressed her views, details included: Normally would not contemplate bringing such a scheme to the Committee with no parking Remarkable and unique area Conservation Area Area had great history Good transport links Mainline railway station Even if there was vehicular access, the Scheme would not provide sufficient parking Critical to maintain vitality of the area Mainly properties in Station Road were all flats with no parking Main service road would not have parking Possibility of parking on adjacent roads Delivery vehicles still used Commercial Road even though there were no loading bays Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: The proposed bollard near Commercial Road would be fixed The no-loading restrictions were only during peak traffic times The decision to approve the Scheme at Black and White Cars was a balanced judgement, Members decided to approve the Scheme as it was in a sustainable location Parking provision was inadequate for the Proposal The Borough of Poole had adopted policies which covered parking Officers highlighted on the screen the progress regarding the service road at the rear Ward Councillor Williams, expressed her views, details included: Severe parking issues Shops and restaurants caused much of the parking problems Awkward Site Not a cut and dried decision 4

5 Would listen to the debate A Member stated that it was a case of buyer beware when purchasing one of the proposed flats as there would be no parking provision. A Member stated that the properties would need to be marketed as non-car parking properties. A Member stated that the Site could become impossible to develop due to parking issues. A Member stated that he was torn between a valuable Brown Field Site versus parking problems, however, on balance, he was minded to support the granting of Planning Permission. The Chairman stated that he regularly visited the Ashley Cross area and always walked due to the lack of parking. He added that the parking problems in the area had reached a tipping point and consequently, in his opinion, enough was enough. Mr Brown summed up his views, details included: Had satisfied 10 of the 11 issues raised by the Planning Department Cycle parking provision, lockable On being put to the Vote, the Officer Recommendation to refuse was LOST. Voting: For 1 Against 7 Abstained 0 Members continued by discussing conditions for Approval and agreed to delegate to the Head of Growth and Infrastructure, and with the agreement of the Chairman. RESOLVED, contrary to Officer Recommendation, to delegate to the Head of Growth and Infrastructure to approve Planning Permission, subject to CIL and Conditions, those Conditions to be agreed with the Chairman of the Planning Committee. Voting: For unanimous 5

6 ITEM NO 02 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/00951/P APPLICATION TYPE Outline SITE ADDRESS 245 Blandford Road, Poole, BH15 4AZ PROPOSALS Outline planning application for demolition of British Legion Club house and erect 4x 1 bed houses and 4x 3 bed houses (total 8 units) with parking and new estate road. REGISTERED 29 June, 2017 APPLICANT Carlton Developments (Poole) Ltd AGENT J Burgess & Associates Ltd WARD Hamworthy East CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan The Application was before Committee at the request of Councillor White because of the conflict with Development Plan Policies seeking mixed use development. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 19 October 2017, which commenced at 11:30am and concluded at 11:36am. Councillors Garner-Watts, Parker, Burden, Le Poidevin, Mellor, Tindle and Williams were in attendance. James Gilfillan, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area. The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the social, economic and environmental benefits of delivering a range of housing in the Local Centre that would support the needs of residents and vitality and viability of the Local Centre in a layout that could facilitate comprehensive development of adjoining site, presented an attractive, active and safe residential street, which would outweigh the failure to rationalise the access across the entire SSA23 Policy Area. The Application was therefore recommended for Approval. Mr Constance, Objector, expressed his views, details included: Referred to other Applications on the Agenda All of the Sites should be looked at in total Fantastic opportunity to deal with the whole Site rather than piece-meal Designated by the Borough of Poole as a Local Centre Mixed use Environmental enhancement Must not ignore policies in the Core Strategy or Poole Quays Forum s Neighbourhood Plan Agreed that housing was required Proposal was back-garden development Poole Quays Forum had commissioned a Development Brief 6

7 Brief had been shown to the Developers Had some dialogue with one of the Developers, but not both Joined up approach was required All 3 Applications should be for mixed use As a result, requested Members refuse Planning Permission Important to encourage all parties to explore real opportunities Mr Burkington and Mr Miles, Applicants, expressed their views, details included: Applicant s Agents Client owned the Site, including the residential bungalow 247/249 was under separate ownership Comprehensive development of all adjoining sites was unlikely Assembly of all plots of land not viable Not compulsory to develop as a whole Each Application should be considered on its own merits Properties would support the local community and shops Quoted PCS25 Shops, dental practice etc were already in existence in the area No requirement for more shops Existing facilities would benefit from the development Single access Referred to the Hamworthy Centre Development Brief Quoted PQF6 Site had been derelict for nearly 10 years Would enhance the character of the area Would stop vandalism and anti-social behaviour Quoted PCS5 and PCS22 Retail shops should be on the old Co-Op Site side of the road In the absence of Ward Councillor White, his representation was read out, details included: Had concerns about all 3 Applications None conformed to Planning Policy Policy required mixed use development All 3 Proposals were for housing only Loss of existing community facility Access issues Development needed to be together Coherent scheme required Requested Members reject all 3 Applications Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: Members must consider the Applications before them Site had been designated in the Local Centre since the 2004 Local Plan, confirmed again in the 2009 Core Strategy and also the Poole Quays Forum Polices, therefore a comprehensive approach was required 7

8 It was possible to have a higher density of development on this Site Sites were in different ownership A Member stated that in an ideal world a combined Application for all 3 Sites would be beneficial, however, what was before Committee was possible to develop and therefore was minded to approve. A Member stated that housing was desperately needed and there was no retail frontage to the Site. He added that the additional houses would support the local community. A Member stated that she was aware that the landowners were not talking to each other. What was required was to knock their heads together. The Chairman stated that the Application Site did not lend itself to commercial development and therefore was minded to support the officer recommendation. Mr Constance, summed up his views, details included: Opportunity to get people together Do not support the Application until further efforts had been made to arrive at a joined-up and cohesive scheme Mr Burkington and Mr Miles summed up their views, details included: Client on 2 occasions had tried to speak to the adjoining Developer No response from Holton Homes RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted With CIL Contribution and subject to securing the following by S.106 Agreement: 1. Provide construction details, drainage, lighting and materials and make the access road available for adoption as public highway. 2. A financial contribution of 2, (plus admin fee) towards mitigating the harm to the Dorset Heathlands SPA and SSSI in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD 2015, Policies PCS28, PCS36 and PCS37 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, Policy DM9 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and Policies IN1 and IN2 of the Delivering Poole's Infrastructure DPD OL080 (Submission of Reserved Matters (3 Years)) 2. OL010 (Submission of Reserved Matters) 3. PL02 (Plans Listing - Outline) 4. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 5. HW090 (Access Gradient Not to Exceed 1:15) 6. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) 7. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Prior to first occupation of the scheme the bin collection area shown on the approved plans shall be laid out and available for use for the presentation of bins for collection and shall be retained for that purpose. 8

9 Reason: In order to make appropriate provision for waste collection and to preserve highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, and DM07 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies GN100 (No Further Windows in Specified Elevation) (North elevation) 9. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential) (10%) Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN43 (Section 106 Agreement) 4. IN82 (Demolition of Buildings) Voting: For Unanimous ITEM NO 03 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/00950/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 245 Blandford Road, Poole, BH15 4AZ PROPOSALS Demolition of the existing bungalow and garage and the erection of terrace 4 x 2 bed houses with parking to rear. REGISTERED 4 July, 2017 APPLICANT Carlton Developments (Poole) Ltd AGENT J Burgess & Associates Ltd WARD Hamworthy East CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan The Application was before Committee at the request of Councillor White because of the conflict with Development Plan Policies seeking mixed use development. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 19 October 2017, which commenced at 11:36am and concluded at 11:43am. Councillors Garner-Watts, Parker, Burden, Le Poidevin, Mellor, Tindle and Williams were in attendance. James Gilfillan, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area. The Presentation continued with a summary of the pre-application advice, consultations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that whilst the provision of dwellings in the Local Centre had social, economic and environmental benefits, these would not outweigh the failure to take advantage of the benefits of the location Site to deliver a mix of uses, commercial or community premises that would enhance the vitality and viability of the Local Centre, in accordance with adopted policies specific to this area. The Application was therefore recommended for Refusal. 9

10 Mr Constance, Objector, expressed his views, details included: Waste of a potential site Interlinked to the Core Strategy and Poole Quays Form Policies Would lose the opportunity of retail space on Blandford Road Could have shops with dwellings above Would end up with a mass of tarmac Access onto a busy road A comprehensive scheme could be provided Many more dwellings could be provided Requested that Members refuse Planning Permission Encouraged dialogue between the Developers Mr Burkington and Mr Miles expressed their views, details included: Outlined the Proposal Utilised the Site to its best Off-road parking 2 per house Would complement the local pattern of development Conventional construction Would use local materials Would preserve the residential character of the area Neighbouring privacy would be preserved Gardens would be used as gardens, not for parking Retail development should take place opposite Members agreed to note the previous comments of Ward Councillor White. Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: The requirement for commercial use was significant Needed to support polices in the Local Plan Officers explained the location of the nearest pedestrian crossing All policies regarding mixed use were evidence-based A Member stated that it was interesting to note that the Co-op had decided to rebuild a smaller store and that decision would have been based on their retail knowledge. A Member stated that he was in favour of residential units and the Proposal fitted in well on the Site. A Member stated that he agreed with the comments about the Co-op and added that there were already empty retail units in the area and therefore would not vote in favour of the Officer Recommendation to Refuse. The Chairman stated that he was minded to vote in favour of refusal. He added that Members had already approved residential units at the rear and consequently the development should support the Local Centre as set out in the adopted policies. 10

11 Mr Constance summed up his views, details included: Area needed more shops Had built another bridge to improve the area, no-one wanted Hamworthy residents constantly going into the Poole Town Centre to shop as there were shops already in Hamworthy Wanted to reduce traffic movements A good mixed use development was required Mr Burkington and Mr Miles summed up their views, details included: Commercial use would have an adverse effect on the existing retail outlets Local grocery store nearby Area already had adequate facilities Must not detract from the existing Local Centre Doug Evans, Development Team Manager, stated that Members should attach significant weight to adopted Planning Policy. He reminded Members of the recently adopted Poole Quays Forum Neighbourhood Plan and the proven need for more retail floor space in the Local Centre. He added that policies were based on research and evidence of such need. On being put to the Vote, the Officer Recommendation to Refuse was LOST. Voting: For 3 Against 5 Abstained 0 Members continued by discussing conditions for Approval and agreed to delegate to the Head of Growth and Infrastructure, with the agreement of the Chairman. RESOLVED, contrary to Officer Recommendation, to delegate to the Head of Growth and Infrastructure to approve Planning Permission subject to CIL, Section 106 Agreement and Conditions, such Conditions to be agreed with the Chairman of Planning Committee. Voting: For Unanimous 11

12 ITEM NO 04 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/00088/P APPLICATION TYPE Outline SITE ADDRESS 241a and 243 Blandford Road, Poole, BH15 4AZ PROPOSALS Outline application to demolish some buildings and replace with a new development of 10 x 3 bedroom houses with associated access and parking whilst retaining the Hamworthy Liberal Club REGISTERED 2 February, 2017 APPLICANT Holton Homes WARD Hamworthy East CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan The Application was before Committee at the request of Councillor White because of the significance of proposals in the Hamworthy Local Centre to local residents. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 19 October 2017, which commenced at 11:43am and concluded at 12:05pm. Councillors Garner-Watts, Parker, Burden, Le Poidevin, Mellor, Tindle and Williams were in attendance. James Gilfillan, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area. The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, pre-application advice, consultations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the poor layout and access arrangements resulted in an unattractive car-dominated environment, with a level and layout of parking likely to result in friction between occupiers and the failure to achieve a layout that accommodated policy-compliant rationalisation of accesses and the environmental benefits that it should bring to the appearance of the streetscene and Local Centre, and highway and pedestrian safety. The Application was therefore recommended for refusal. Mr Constance, Objector, expressed his views, details included: Should be a mixed use Scheme Officers had made the point that it should be mixed use Poole Quays Forum Policies had made that point Clearly housing was required, but it must be in a mixed use scheme Too much tarmac Entrance would not be a pretty sight Liberal Hall Trustees were flexible Needed a joined-up approach Opportunity to create a mixed use development Mr Howells, Applicant s Agent, expressed his views, details included: Agent to Holton Homes 12

13 Unsightly Site Vandalism existed on-site Would provide additional parking On-site drainage would be resolved Pre-application advice had been positive Outlined the Application Would retain existing access points Support of Transportation Services Landscaping not part of this Application Sustainable development Better than the adjoining schemes Would secure the long-term retention of the Liberal Club Accorded with all planning policies Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: Officers clarified the access arrangements Access would be wide enough for two cars to pass, plus pedestrians A Member stated that there was a slight shortfall in parking, but overall he felt the proposals were acceptable. A Member stated that he could not see any harm, he added that he did not know of a better Brown Field Site in the area, and that he was massively in favour of providing much-needed housing. The Chairman stated that the only concern was its position and the access arrangements by such a busy Club. Mr Constance summed up his views, details included: Agreed that more homes were needed Again asked Members to consider whether the Developers were making the most of all the 3 Sites Referred to Poole Quays Forum Neighbourhood Plan Policies and the Core Strategy There was a need for both residential and retail Mr Howells summed up his views, details included: 10 new homes Sustainable location Northern entrance was solely for the use of pedestrians and cyclists On being put to the Vote, the Officer Recommendation to Refuse was LOST. Voting: 13

14 Against Unanimous Members continued by discussing conditions for Approval and it was agreed to delegate to the Head of Growth and Infrastructure, with agreement of the Chairman. RESOLVED, contrary to Officer Recommendation, to delegate to the Head of Growth and Infrastructure to approve Planning Permission subject to CIL, Section 106 Agreement and Conditions, those Conditions to be agreed with the Chairman of the Planning Committee. Voting: For Unanimous ITEM NO 05 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01070/P APPLICATION TYPE Outline SITE ADDRESS 9 Martello Road South, Poole, BH13 7HF PROPOSALS Demolish existing dwellinghouse and erect 3 dwelling houses. REGISTERED 20 July, 2017 APPLICANT Brownseabuilt Ltd AGENT Evans & Traves LLP WARD Canford Cliffs CASE OFFICER Steve Llewellyn The Application was before Committee at the request of the Applicant, with the agreement of Councillor Pawlowski. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 19 October 2017, which commenced at 10:07am and concluded at 10:25am. Councillors Garner-Watts, Parker, Burden, Le Poidevin, Mellor, Tindle and Williams were in attendance. Steve Llewellyn, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area. The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, consultations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed access arrangements would not cause any detriment to highway and pedestrian safety, whilst the proposals for the landscaping of the Site would preserve the setting of the Site and its contribution to the sylvan character of the streetscene of Martello Road South and Oratory Gardens. The principle of the proposed development to demolish the existing dwelling; sub-divide the Site; and erect 3 detached dwellings, however, was not considered to be acceptable. In this respect, the Proposal would result in plots that were substantially smaller and narrower than 14

15 other plots that were characteristic of Oratory Gardens, with limited separation between the proposed dwellings. As such, the proposals would appear as a crampt form of development that would fail to reflect the well-defined special relationship that existed between dwellings and would be uncharacteristic of the prevailing pattern of development within Oratory Gardens. The proposed development therefore failed to assemble sufficient land in order to deliver a development of a type, scale, density and layout that would preserve the residential character of the area, contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS5 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy. Whilst the proposed development would result in the provision of 2 additional dwellings, towards meeting Poole s identified housing need, it was not considered that this would provide sufficient benefit to outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of Oratory Gardens and the surrounding area. The Application was therefore recommended for Refusal. Ms Evans, Applicant s Agent, expressed her views, details included: Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak Outlined the Application Indicative layout only It was a changing area Corner plot A transition Site 3 detached houses Houses sat comfortably within the plot Outlined similar developments in the area Not out-of-keeping Not small plots Not cramped Boundary planting would remain Trees of questionable health would be removed Mature trees to be replanted Would enhance the setting Would maintain the character of the area Modest application Only 1 objection from local residents Transportation Services have not objected Not in a Conservation Area Not harmful Requested Members approve Planning Permission Ward Councillor Mrs Haines expressed her views, details included: Case Officer s comprehensive Report recommended refusal Had been told previously that other plots in the area were transitional Now No. 9 was transitional No such thing as a precedent Would further erode the character of the area 15

16 Needed to protect the verdant setting Character of the area was made up of generous sized plots Referred to the NPPF Applications needed to be assessed in the context of the area they were in Quoted PCS5 and 23 Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: Site was well-screened from Martello Road South, but not from Oratory Gardens Existing property was approximately 30 years old A Member stated that, in principle, she supported plot severance, however, in her opinion this was a step too far. A Member stated that he struggled to see any harm. He added that building properties was good for the economy, good for Council Tax and also good for families. A Member stated that the proposals would be alien to the streetscene and Oratory Gardens. The Chairman stated that Borough of Poole had policies for a reason, and that the Proposal would cause a lot of damage to Oratory Gardens. Ms Evans, summed up her views, details included: Corner site If the plot was in the centre of Oratory Gardens, then it would not be transitional Density still very low Would retain existing landscaping RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Refused for the following reasons: 1. RR000 (Non Standard Refusal Reason) The proposed development by reason of the subdivision of the site to form three residential plots would result in uncharacteristically small and narrow plots and result in a cramped form of development that would fail to reflect the well defined spatial relationship that exists between dwellings and would be inconsistent with and fail to respect the prevailing and established pattern of development of Oratory Gardens. The proposal therefore represents an inappropriate form of development that fails to assemble sufficient land in order to deliver a development of a type, scale, density and layout that would preserve the residential character of the area, contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS5 and PCS23 of the Core Strategy (February 2009). Informative Notes 1. IN76 (List of Plans Refused) 2. IN75 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Refusal) 3. IN73 (Working with applicants: Refusal) 16

17 Voting: For 6 Against 2 Abstained 0 Councillor Tindle left the Meeting. ITEM NO 06 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01055/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 22 De Haviland Close, Wimborne, BH21 1XU PROPOSALS New four bedroom dwelling on land of 22 De Haviland Close REGISTERED 26 July, 2017 APPLICANT Mrs Eatough AGENT Flaxton Engineering Ltd WARD Merley & Bearwood CASE OFFICER Chloe Oliver The Application was before Committee at the request of Councillor Jane Newell because of concerns of local residents about car parking, harm to the character of the area, and the house being overbearing. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 19 October 2017, which commenced at 10:56am and concluded at 11:10am. Councillors Garner-Watts, Parker, Burden, Le Poidevin, Mellor, Tindle and Williams were in attendance. Chloe Oliver, Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area. Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet, and, in particular, a replacement copy of Plan 6C. The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, pre-application advice, representations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the Proposal would assemble sufficient land for single plot severance; would be of a design, scale and layout that would integrate well into the streetscene and preserve the character of the area, with no harm to neighbouring properties and would provide a safe access with two off-road parking spaces. The Application was therefore recommended for Approval. Mr Richards, Objector, expressed his views, details included: Failed to respect or enhance the area Size/shape/location at odds with the area 17

18 Existing property carefully sited at an angle Proposals were incongruous Unprecedented Did not fit in with the streetscene Open-plan aspect of the Site would be lost Overbearing Oppressive Out-of-place Quoted PCS5 and PCS23 Ms Gill, Objector, expressed her views, details included: Outlined the position of the Proposal on the screen On the approach to the cul-de-sac Would back onto our garden Garden was our family space Garden at present was light and open Would now have afternoon shade Not in keeping with the area Privacy issues Openness was a characteristic of the area Back to front position out-of-character Mr Davies, Applicant, expressed his views, details included: Reiterated Planning Officer s comments Landscaping and screening Would exceed Building Regulations Efficient building to run Plot size average for the area No parking issues In the absence of Ward Councillor Jane Newell, her representation was read out, details included: Merley a unique character and feel Family-sized gardens Original developer had chosen not to squeeze in an additional property Would have a view of the rear of the house Overbearing Should be lower in height Currently in quiet cul-de-sac Limited bus services, so most residents had cars Limited off-street parking People rarely used their own garages Displaced parking would occur Parking would hinder sight lines Noise and disruption from contractors 18

19 A Member stated that he found the Site Visit extremely useful. A Member stated that he had sympathy with the Objectors, however, the Proposal was in keeping with the area and he was minded to support the Officer Recommendation. The Chairman stated that there were no planning reasons to refuse Planning Permission. Ms Gill/Mr Richards, summed up their views, details included: Re-emphasised that in 1976, when the homes were built, it was not considered appropriate to develop on that parcel of land Car parking would be an issue Mr Davies, summed up his views, details included: Adequate parking He had no idea why, in 1976, the Developer had decided not to develop this part of the Site RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted With CIL Contribution 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. GN050 (Matching Materials) 3. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s)) Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions the first floor landing window on the north elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass in a form sufficient to prevent external views 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 opening. Reason - To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). 4. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential) (10%) 5. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The boundary treatments shall be erected in accordance with the details indicated on the approved plans prior to the first occupation of the dwelling, hereby approved, and shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years and thereafter retained. Reason: To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (April 2012). 6. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 7. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 8. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) 9. PL01 (Plans Listing) Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN81 (SAMM Approval) 19

20 4. IN13 (Kerb Crossing to be Lowered) Voting: For Unanimous Councillors Burden and Williams left the Meeting. ITEM NO 07 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01145/F APPLICATION TYPE Householder SITE ADDRESS 142 Clarendon Road, Broadstone, BH18 9HZ PROPOSALS Part demolition of existing ground floor rear extension and construction of new two storey rear extension. REGISTERED 10 August, 2017 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Sampson AGENT Mr Knowles WARD Broadstone CASE OFFICER Monika Kwiatkowska The Application was before Committee because of it proximity to a Councillor s home. Doug Evans, Development Team Manager, stated that he had nothing further to add to the Report. RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted with Conditions subject to the following: 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the development hereby permitted shall be as specified in the application form. Reason - To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development and that existing and in accordance with Policies PCS23A and PCS5(v) of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009). 3. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window) (first floor bedroom window, serving Bedroom 3, on the side elevation facing No 144 Clarendon Road) 4. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Windows) (first floor bathroom windows on the side elevation, facing No 140 Clarendon Road) 5. PL01 (Plans Listing) Informative Notes 20

21 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) Voting: For Unanimous ITEM NO 08 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01177/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 311 and Rear of 309 Blandford Road, Poole, BH15 4HP PROPOSALS Variation of condition 2 of planning permission APP/16/01007/F as described in that description to revise the list of approved plans to reflect revised materials used on unit 1. REGISTERED 16 August, 2017 APPLICANT Metroball Ltd AGENT Venice designs WARD Hamworthy East CASE OFFICER Eleanor Godesar The Application was before Committee because it was in close proximity to a Councillor s home. Eleanor Godesar, Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report, and images of the Site and surrounding area. The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that cladding all the elevations of Unit 1 in fibre cement wood-effect cladding represented a significant departure from the prevailing style, materials, and character of nearby dwellings and created a prominent and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene. As such, the Proposals would not preserve the established character and appearance of the area. Mr Tapshott, Applicant s Agent, expressed his views, details included: Property already had permission for cladding for half of the property. Not significantly harmful Added more colour Respected the character of the area Quoted DM1 Not in a Conservation Area Property had Permitted Development Rights New owner could undertake works under Permitted Development Rights Please approve, minor at most Respected the area. Sat comfortably within the streetscene Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: 21

22 Clarification was provided about what could and could not be done under Permitted Development Rights The approved level of cladding was highlighted on the screen A Member stated that he was undecided because, in isolation, the property looked attractive and matched the properties to the rear, however, from the streetscene it did not match the other properties in the road. The Chairman stated that the property looked out-of-place and that the Developer had over stepped the mark. Mr Tapshott summed up his views, details included: Acceptable in the streetscene New owner could change to full cladding straight away under Permitted Development Rights RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Refused for the following reasons: Reasons 1. RR000 (Non Standard Refusal Reason) Full cladding of Unit 1 would be a significant departure from the prevailing style and materials of nearby dwellings. As such, the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to Policy PCS 23 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and DM 1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted Informative Notes 1. IN73 (Working with applicants: Refusal) 2. IN76 (List of Plans Refused) 3. IN75 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Refusal) 4. IN81 (SAMM Approval) The necessary contributions towards SAMM arising from the proposed development have been secured by a S.111 agreement and have been received. Voting: For 4 Against 0 Abstained 1 22