BOROUGH OF POOLE PLANNING COMMITTEE 25 JANUARY 2018 BOROUGH OF POOLE PLANNING COMMITTEE 25 JANUARY 2018

Transcription

1 BOROUGH OF POOLE PLANNING COMMITTEE 25 JANUARY 2018 The Meeting commenced at 1:01pm and concluded at 4:45pm Present Councillor Garner-Watts (Chairman) Councillor Parker (Vice Chairman) Councillors Ms Atkinson (substitute for Councillor Wilson), Bagwell, Burden, Le Poidevin, Stribley (substitute for Councillor Mellor), Tindle and Williams Members of the public present: Approximately 20 PC45.18 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mellor (substituted by Councillor Stribley) and Councillor Wilson (substituted by Councillor Ms Atkinson). PC46.18 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest. Other interests Members wished to be recorded Councillors Burden and Parker had been lobbied on Plans List Item Nos. 1-5 Councillors Le Poidevin and Garner-Watts had been lobbied on Plans Lit Item Nos. 1,2,3 and 5. Councillor Bagwell had been lobbied on Plans List Item Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Councillors Tindle and Williams had been lobbied on Plans List Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 PC47.18 MINUTES The agreement of the Minutes of the previous Meeting would be deferred until the Meeting due to be held on 22 February PC48.18 PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Committee considered the Planning Applications as set out in the Schedule to the Minutes and dealt with therein. 1

2 PC49.18 PLANNING APPEALS RECEIVED AND PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED The Information Report was noted. PC50.18 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 25 JANUARY 2018 ITEM NO 01 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/00141/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS Land to rear of Wharfdale Road, Poole, BH12 2ED PROPOSALS Sever land from the curtilage of Nos Wharfdale Road and erect 6no. dwellings with the formation of a new vehicular access driveway from Wharfdale Road between Nos.26 and 28 and associated parking, bin storage and landscaping. REGISTERED 13 February, 2017 APPLICANT OOTA Property Ltd AGENT Morgan Design Studio Ltd WARD CASE OFFICER Branksome West Steve Llewellyn The application was before the Committee at the request Councillor Mrs Le Poidevin because of concerns about inappropriate development of a backland site and the concerns of neighbouring residents. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 25 January 2018, which commenced at 10:30am and concluded at 10:55am. Councillors Ms Atkinson, Bagwell, Burden, Garner-Watts, Le Poidevin, Parker, Stribley 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, pre-application advice, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the scheme was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the Report. Simon Morgan, Applicant, expressed his views, details included: Was the architect for the Scheme Had undertaken a positive pre-application process with Officers The Scheme complied with policy Respected the character of the site Proposal would enhance the area Aware of some objections Assembled sufficient land Was a cohesive and comprehensive application 3

4 Officers responded to Members request for clarification, details included: Waste bins would be retained on each property, although they would be collected from a designated area at the front of the site. The Borough of Poole did not have a specific policy that required a certain amount of amenity space Condition 13 would secure appropriate fencing on the boundary to the site. The Borough of Poole did not have a specific policy that dictated standards for bedroom sizes although the sizes that had been quoted for this scheme were considered reasonable by national standards. The street would be of an adoptable standard which would include suitable lighting, in accordance with Condition 8. It was likely that the street lighting used would be in the form of low level bollards to remain considerate to existing properties and to prevent unnecessary light pollution. A Member stated that she had some serious concerns about the Proposal and felt that the scheme represented overdevelopment, was poorly configured and did not make best use of the land available and therefore would not be supporting the Scheme. A Member stated that there were no planning grounds to refuse the Scheme and that she thought it to be wholly acceptable. She added that she was pleaded that the road would be of an adoptable standard and suggested that the existing concrete on site be removed to assist with drainage and that the boundaries of the site should be secured properly. A Member stated that, in her opinion, the scheme would not enhance the area. The Chairman stated that backland development was already established in the area and that he could see no reason to refuse planning permission. RESOLVED that that Planning Permission be Granted With CIL Contribution 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. PL01 (Plans Listing) 3. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the dwelling, hereby approved, shall be as per those specified on the approved plans and as stated on the application form. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the dwellings is satisfactory and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009). 4. GN100 (No Further Windows in Specified Elevation) (any elevation above the ground floor level (such expression to include the roof and wall) of the dwellings hereby permitted) 5. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential) (10%) 4

5 6. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 7. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 8. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development, hereby approved, plans and particulars showing the layout, together with details of levels, sections, drainage, and street lighting of the proposed access road, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to ensure the approved access road is built to an adoptable standard. The access road shall subsequently be fully constructed in its entirety, including the final surfacing, in accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of the fifth dwelling. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can be satisfied that the approved access road will be built to an adoptable standard in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with the provisions of Policies PCS15 and PCS26 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policies DM7 and DM8 of the Poole Site Specific and Development Management Policies DPD (April 2012). 9. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Prior to commencement of construction of any foundation of any of the dwellings, hereby approved, the vehicular access road shall be constructed along its entire length from the carriageway of the existing highway of Wharfdale Road to at least base course level together with the provision of surface water drainage from the access road in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that sufficient land is assembled to accommodate the proposed development and to deliver a comprehensive development of the site in manner that preserves the residential character of the area and to prevent the increased risk of flooding and surface water run-off from the site by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal from the access road in accordance with the provisions of Policies PCS5, PCS23 and PCS33 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 10. HW110 (Cycle Provision) 11. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) 12. AA01 (Non standard Condition) No development shall take place until such time that a scheme for the provision of sustainable urban drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved 5

6 scheme that shall be implemented in its entirety prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings, hereby approved, and thereafter maintained and retained. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and surface water run-off from the site by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy PCS33 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009). 13. GN020 (Screen Fencing/Walling) 14. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt) 15. TR040 (Pre-commencement Meeting) 16. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) (7 trees) 17. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted) 18. AA01 (Non standard Condition) No development shall take place until such time that an ecological assessment has been undertaken for the presence of any protected species within the rear gardens of Nos.30 and 32 Wharfdale Road and a report of the findings and details of any necessary further survey work, mitigation and compensation measures, together with the timing for their implementation, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall subsequently be implemented in strict accordance with the approved further survey work, mitigation and compensation measures and timing for their implementation. Reason: To ensure the protection of species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Habitats Regulations and the Berne Convention and in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (April 2012). 19. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures set out in the Recommendations of the approved Protected Species Assessment prepared by EJP Ecology and dated February 2017 shall be implemented in their entirety and made available for use prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings, hereby approved, and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of supporting biodiversity and ecology and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM9 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (April 2012). 20. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The bin collection area as indicated on the approved plans shall be 6

7 Voting: constructed/laid out and made available for use prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings, hereby approved, and shall thereafter be retained and kept available for use as such at all times. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the storage of refuse and recycling bins to be stored in an appropriate location on the relevant collection day(s) in the interests of the amenities of the future occupants of the approved dwellings and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (April 2012). Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN81 (SAMM Approval) 4. IN13 (Kerb Crossing to be Lowered) 5. IN00 (Non Standard Informative) The formation of the approved access will require that a telegraph pole be relocated and the applicant is therefore advised to contact the telecommunication services company responsible for the equipment for further advise. Any associated highway works will require a relevant licence under the Highways Act and would be at the applicant's expense. For 7 Against 2 Abstentions 0 ITEM NO 02 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01524/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS Land rear of 95 Commercial Road, Poole, BH14 0JD PROPOSALS Demolition of store/garage and lean-to at rear of 95 Commercial Road and erection of 2 and a half storey rear extension comprising 6 X 1 bed flats, extension of flat Nos. 11 and 17 Old Coach Mews. Addition of juliette balcony screen to No.15 old coach mews and associated parking and refuse storage. REGISTERED 2 October, 2017 APPLICANT Primetower Properties Ltd WARD Parkstone CONSERVATION AREA Ashley Cross CASE OFFICER Eleanor Godesar 7

8 The Application was before the Committee because the history of the site and of adjacent sites. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 25 January 2018, which commenced at 10:05am and concluded at 10:18am. Councillors Ms Atkinson, Bagwell, Burden, Garner-Watts, Le Poidevin, Parker, Stribley and Williams were in attendance. Eleanor Godesar, 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, representations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the scheme would result in overdevelopment on the site which, in turn, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the wider Ashley Cross Conservation area and neighbouring privacy and amenities. Darryl Howells, Applicant, expressed his views, details included: The area had been the subject of many planning applications, many of which had been approved Site was in a sustainable location Scheme accorded with existing characteristics of the area Proposed building would not be visible from Commercial Road Would be in context with other buildings Eaves and ridge would be lower than existing buildings Was not inappropriate Was not out of scale No adverse window to window relationship No evidence of material harm No need for car parking due to its location Was currently a redundant brownfield site Requested that Members approved Planning Permission Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: The planning density was significantly higher than what was preferred, although this was based on a calculation and applications should be judged by their own merits A service Road which would be funded by developer contributions was being planned for the area and it was anticipated that this would be completed within the next 12 months. A Member stated that although she had mixed feelings about the Scheme she was unable to think of any material planning reason as to why it should be refused. A Member stated that the area in which the Scheme would be located, already had a number of parking concerns and that the scheme would only exacerbate them. She added that whilst development was acceptable within this area, the reduced amenity space that 8

9 the proposal offered was over the top and a step too far and would therefore be supporting the Officer s recommendation to refuse Planning Permission. A Member stated that he believed the scheme to be an ambitious project and that the parking issues within the area had been long standing. He added that, in his opinion, there was no reason why the Scheme could not be successful. The Chairman stated that he agreed with the reasons for refusal and that even though there was an extant permission on site, what was being proposed was a step too far and would lead to a loss of amenity and inappropriate parking. Mr Howells summed up his views, details included: There d been no public objections Massing would be screened Was an acceptable proposal RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Refused for the following reasons: Reasons 1. RR000 (Non Standard Refusal Reason) The proposed development by virtue of its plot coverage, massing, design and relationship with neighbouring sites would result in overdevelopment of the plot having a bulky and dominant appearance which would fail to respond to key characteristics of the Conservation Area and neighbouring sites. The proposals therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the streetscene and Ashley Cross Conservation Area and would be contrary to Policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and DM2 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted RR000 (Non Standard Refusal Reason) The proposals would, by virtue of their plot coverage, massing and relationship to neighbouring sites, have a dominant and oppressive impact on Commercial Road which would be harmful to their amenities. In respect to Commercial Road the proposal would result in harmful overlooking between 11 and 15 Old Coach Mews by virtue of the proximity of the proposed bedroom window at No. 11 and the existing terrace area at first floor. In addition, the proposal would result in harmful overlooking to the neighbouring building (Block B) which has received permission at Commercial Road as a result of the separation distance of facing windows. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted RR000 (Non Standard Refusal Reason) The lack of parking in the proposal will lead to drivers parking inconsiderately and taking short term parking risks within the proposed 9

10 rear service road and service road turning head compromising the delivery of an efficient rear service road and the movement of large commercial vehicles. Delivery of this rear service road has been a long term Council Policy to alleviate traffic flow and safety issues on Commercial Road, including those for public transport and cyclists. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PCS15, PCS16 and PCS26 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted 2009 and Policy DM7 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD RR000 (Non Standard Refusal Reason) The proposal fails to secure the adoption by the Local Highway Authority and final road surfacing to an appropriate standard of the adjacent Old Coach Mews turning head. Failure to secure this road for adoption would not meet the Council's aims and policy to deliver an efficient rear service road for properties fronting Commercial Road, contrary to Policies PCS 15, PCS 16 and PCS 26 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and Policy DM 7 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted RR001 (SAMM) Informative Notes 1. IN76 (List of Plans Refused) 2. IN73 (Working with applicants: Refusal) 3. IN75 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Refusal) 4. IN80 (SAMM Refusal) Voting: For 5 Against 2 Abstentions - 2 ITEM NO 03 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01132/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS Land adj Derwent, Magna Road, Poole, BH21 3AW PROPOSALS 3 detached dwelling houses with integral garages. REGISTERED 7 August, 2017 APPLICANT Mr Diment AGENT Ken Parke Planning Consultants WARD P160 CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan This Application was before the Committee at the request of Cllr Mrs Pope given the planning history of the site; the judgement of the Planning Inspector who considered the 10

11 appeal against refusal last year; and since the site is safeguarded as employment land by the adopted Local Plan. 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 despite the minor social and economic benefits, these would not be sufficient enough to outweigh the harm to the environment due to the Applicant s failure to demonstrate that the Scheme would not give rise to significant harm to European protected species. Marion Pope, Objector, expressed her views, details included: Scheme was contrary to PCS30 This was safeguarded land Land was used by protected species Critical habitat corridor Already a busy area Highway concerns Not a sustainable location Requested that Members refused Planning permission. Tom Whild, Applicant, expressed his views, details included: Principle of the Scheme was acceptable Was located outside of the greenbelt Applicant was keen to work with the Planning Authority to address concerns Acknowledged ecology issues Site had limited ecological value Was engaging with Natural England Requested that determination of the Application be deferred until further engagement had been undertaken. Doug Evans, Development Team Manager, explained to the Committee that, despite the request from the Applicant, it was entitled to make a decision and recommended that a decision was taken. In any event, the Applicant would be entitled to apply again once all concerns had been addressed and the proposals would be considered having regard to the policies of the local plan of that time. Following a general consensus from the Committee that Members wished to proceed with determining the Application, Officers responded to requests for clarification, details included: Growth and Infrastructure had received a representation from Natural England in November 2017 objecting to the Scheme, in part due to a lack of information Only a small amount of land designated for employment use in accordance with 11

12 PCS30 was required The description of the Planning Application would be amended The Chairman stated that whilst the Scheme was well designed, he was not willing to support it without the assurance that Natural England s concerns had been addressed. RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Refused for the following reasons: Voting: Reasons 1. RR000 (Non Standard Refusal Reason) Due to the lack of evidence it has not been demonstrated that the scheme, alone or in combination with other planned developments, would not give rise to significant harm to protected species known to be in the area. The proposals would therefore be contrary to PCS28 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, and DM09 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies 2012 and Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD RR001 (SAMM) Informative Notes 1. IN76 (List of Plans Refused) 2. IN73 (Working with applicants: Refusal) 3. IN75 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Refusal) 4. IN80 (SAMM Refusal) For Unanimous ITEM NO 04 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01640/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 5 Turks Lane, Poole, BH14 8EW PROPOSALS Variation of Condition 3 and Removal of Condition 6 of Planning Permission APP/14/00974/P as described in that Description of Development to vary the list of approved plans to change the layout and scale of the approved houses and remove the requirement to adhere to the Code for Sustainable homes. REGISTERED 7 November, 2017 APPLICANT Stanborough Developments Ltd AGENT Luken Beck 12

13 WARD CASE OFFICER Parkstone James Gilfillan The Application was before the Committee at the request of Cllr Challinor because of the concerns of neighbours in respect of overlooking and the history of the site. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 25 January 2018, which commenced at 11:55am and concluded at 12:02pm. Councillors Ms Atkinson, Bagwell, Burden, Garner-Watts, Le Poidevin, Parker, Stribley, 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, representations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the area, the residential amenity and highway safety. Robert Harvey, Objector, expressed his views, details included: Referenced overcrowding on the site Proposals represented an invasion of privacy Referred to a previously refused scheme This was development by stealth Developer had already commenced works Scheme was at odds with the area Value of homes was being undermined Significant overlooking Requested that Planning Permission be refused David Jobbins, Applicant, expressed his views, details included: These were minor proposals Not visible from the street Retained minimum separation No material harm caused No overlooking. Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: Members needed to consider the scheme on its merits rather than punish the developer for having commenced work already. The proposed changes gave no rise to any harm and, if occupied, the occupier would be able to make the proposed alterations under permitted development rights. Members could resolve to remove certain permitted development rights to prevent future occupiers from erecting further rear extensions without planning consent. 13

14 Following this clarification it was Moved and seconded that a further condition relating to the removal of Permitted Development Rights be added to the recommendation. Voting: For - Unanimous A Member stated that she felt the alterations not to be of a minor scale and would therefore not be supporting the Officer recommendation. A Member stated that he had no objection to the alterations because the work had been carried out within the existing building footprint. The Chairman stated that in his view, there was no reason to refuse planning permission because no extra harm was being done beyond what was already approved. Mr Harvey summed up his views, details included: Proposal was a step too far Too high Mr Jobbins summed up his views, details included: Scheme exceeded usual standards Acknowledged developer should have waited for permission before altering the plans RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted With CIL Contribution 1. GN151 (Variation link to previous condition) Planning permission is granted for the erection of 4 detached houses at 5 Turks Lane in accordance with the terms of the application ref:14/00974/p, dated 17/10/14, without compliance with Condition no.3 & 6 previously imposed on planning permission ref:14/00974/p but subject to the other conditions imposed therein, so far as the same are still subsisting and capable of taking effect and subject to the following new condition: 3. Pursuant of discharging conditions 1 and 2, the outline matters approved (access, layout, scale) shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Block & Location Plans Ref: A Received 20/10/17 Site Plan Ref: A Received 20/10/17 Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 14

15 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, no further rear extensions or windows other than those authorised by this permission shall be erected without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of preserving the amenity of neighbours and in accordance with Policy PCS5(v) and PCS23(A) of the Poole Core Strategy 2009 and Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval 3. IN00 (Non Standard Informative) For the avoidance of doubt Condition no.6 of PP Ref:14/00974/P is deleted. Voting: For 6 Against 1 Abstentions 2 NOTE: The Meeting adjourned at 3:02pm and reconvened at 3:11pm, Councillor Bagwell did not return ITEM NO 05 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01154/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 3 Minterne Road, Poole, BH14 8NA PROPOSALS Demolition of existing bungalow and detached garage and erection of two detached dwellings with integral garages, formation of new access from Minterne Road (Amended Plans Received 16/11/17 & 17/11/17). REGISTERED 9 August, 2017 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Shrosbree AGENT Scott Worsfold Associates Ltd WARD Canford Cliffs CONSERVATION AREA Evening Hill CASE OFFICER Chloe Oliver 15

16 The Application was before the Committee at the request of Councillor Iyengar due to residents' concerns about overlooking and the positions of the proposed houses in relation to the building line. The Application was the subject of a Members Site Visit on 25 January 2018, which commenced at 11:11am and concluded at 11:39am. Councillors Ms Atkinson, Bagwell, Burden, Garner-Watts, Le Poidevin, Parker, Stribley, Tindle and Williams were in attendance. Doug Evans, Development Team Manager, 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, representations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Development Team Manager stated that the proposed houses would be positive features in the streetscene and would preserve and enhance the residential character of the area and the setting of the Evening Hill Conservation Area. Mr Halliday, Objector, expressed his views, details included: Owner/occupier of 1 Minterne Road Objected to two houses being built Too high Too close to the boundary Scheme would endanger a tree within the conservation area Overshadowing caused Over dominating Double the height of existing building Overbearing Harm to amenity Adjacent to conservation area Disagreed with the Officer s report. Gary Worsfold, applicant, expressed his views, details included: Attended the site visit Referred to historic plans relating to 1 Minterne Road Hedge between 1 and 3 Minterne Road would be replanted The image displayed by the objector was not a true representation of the finished building Councillor Iyengar, Ward Member for Canford Cliffs, expressed his views, details included: Scheme failed to preserve or enhance the conservation area Taller than surrounding buildings Would overlook other properties No amenity to rear of 1 Minterne Road 16

17 Threat to trees Miscalculation of location plan Excess bulk, height and mass Further encroachment of conservation area Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: The Arboricultural Officer had raised no concerns in relation to the trees on site and was satisfied that there would be no harm to the trees. All relevant planning history was contained within the report The images that had been provided by the objector were take during the winter season and this was therefore a worst case scenario. Furthermore, much of the shadowing caused was done so by the boundary fence and the garage located at 1 Minterne Road Officers were satisfied that there would be no loss of amenity. A Member stated that she felt that the design was in keeping with the conservation area and that she saw no reason to refuse planning permission. A Member stated that he agreed with his colleague and would also be supporting the Officer recommendation. A Member stated that both 1 and 3 Minterne Road were on identical shaped plots and that the character of the area was individual properties on each plot and even though she liked the overall design, granting Planning Permission would change the area s character. Furthermore, she added that she felt that Permitted Development rights should be removed. The Development Team Leader explained that if approved, there were conditions which would require landscaping plans to be submitted and also removal PD rights. The Chairman stated that he thought that the scheme was well thought out and that he could see no planning reason to refuse Planning Permission. Mr Halliday summed up his views, details included: Commented on only having a short time to prepare for the Committee Disagreed with overshadowing comments Referred to site visit The Local Planning Authority had been influenced by a previous decision Mr Worsfold summed up his views, details included: Referred to the design principles Responded to comments made in relation to overshadowing RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted With CIL Contribution 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 17

18 2. GN030 (Sample of Materials) 3. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony) 4. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s)) Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the windows detailed below, shown on the approved plan 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: Windows to ensuite bathroom to Bedroom 2 on the first floor of House 1 (West and North elevation) Windows at first and second floor on the East elevation of House 2 Windows at first floor on the East elevation of House 1 The dormer window at second floor serving Bedroom 4 on the East elevation of House 1 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). 5. GN110 (No Further Alterations to Window(s)) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any subsequent re-enactments thereof, no further alterations shall be made to the windows on the east and west elevations of House 1 and House 2 above ground floor level. Reason - To preserve 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). 6. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential) (10%) 7. GN170 (Screening to Balcony - General) An obscure glazed screen of a form sufficient to prevent external views of at least 1.8 metres in height shall be erected along the east and west sides of the north-facing balconies on House 1 and House 2 as shown on the approved plan. The screen shall be erected prior to the commencement of use of the balcony, hereby permitted, and shall thereafter be permanently retained as such. Reason - In the interests of privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties and in accordance with DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). 18

19 Voting: 8. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Prior to first occupation of House 2, the 1.8m high wall on the east elevation of the terrace shall be constructed, as shown on the approved plans, and shall therefore be retained as such. Reason - In the interests of privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties and in accordance with DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). 9. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 10. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 11. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) 12. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted) 13. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, no further extensions or outbuildings other than those authorised by this permission shall be erected without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To prevent harm to, and pressure for future pruning or felling of, protected trees, in accordance with Policy PCS5 (v) and PCS23(F) of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policy DM1(iii) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). 14. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required) 15. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) (6 trees) 16. PL01 (Plans Listing) Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN81 (SAMM Approval) 4. IN13 (Kerb Crossing to be Lowered) 19

20 For 7 Against 1 ITEM NO 06 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01606/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 71 Oakdale Road, Poole, BH15 3LD PROPOSALS Erection of bungalow REGISTERED 30 October, 2017 APPLICANT Mr Blackmore AGENT Steven Jones Plan Design WARD Oakdale CASE OFFICER Monika Kwiatkowska The Application was before the Committee at the request of Cllr Adams because of concerns about the appropriateness of the proposed development. 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. Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, details of an additional condition (Condition no. 9). The presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, pre-application advice, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgement. In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the Scheme complied with all relevant policies and was therefore recommended for approval. Matt Annen, Applicant, expressed his views, details included: This was an acceptable scheme The massing o the proposed bungalow had been reduced More amenity space had been added Complied with PCS23 No material loss of privacy Mutual Overlooking was already evident in the area No additional overlooking Used existing vehicular access No objections from transportation Requested that Members approved the scheme Councillor Adams, Ward member for Oakdale, expressed his views, details included: Referred to planning history Plot was inadequately sized for two bungalows Concerns over lack of amenity Concerns over lack of space This was a small plot 20

21 Scheme had no regard to current or future owners Requested that Members refused the Scheme Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: The advice that had been given in the pre-application process was that the scheme was not acceptable due to insufficient information being made available, however this had changed once the Application had been submitted for consideration as the required information had been provided and the scheme was therefore now deemed to be acceptable. NOTE: Councillor Atkinson left the Meeting at 16:11 and returned at 16:13 Poole did not have a policy in place that specified how large room sizes must be and therefore it was up to potential occupiers to determine whether or not room sizes were to their satisfaction. It was not up to the Committee to decide what the property s postal address would be if planning permission was granted. A Member stated that the proposed bungalow seemed to be small and would feel more comfortable with PD rights being removed. She added that the plot was commensurate with other plots in the area and that she could not think of a planning reason to refuse Planning Permission. The Chairman stated that the scheme was respectful to the character of the area and despite its seemingly small size, it complied with relevant policies and would provide another much needed home in the area. Mr Annen summed up his views, details included: Referred to previous larger scheme This scheme was not harmful to the area Sufficient amenity had been provided RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted With CIL Contribution 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. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 21

22 4. HW010 (No Other Access Except That Shown) 5. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The existing front boundary wall, facing Oakdale Road, shall be retained as shown on the approved plans. The boundary wall shall be maintained and retained in perpetuity as a permanent vehicle proof barrier and shall not be removed or altered unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. reason: In the interests of highway/pedestrian safety and in accordance with Policies DM7 and DM8 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted 2012) and Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009). 6. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, no roof alterations and loft conversions, including provision of dormers, specified in Class B and C of Part 1 of the GPDO 2015, shall be erected without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. 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). 7. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential) (10%) 8. PL01 (Plans Listing) 9. The whole of the curtilage of the proposed dwelling, as set out in approved Planning Drawing 2 (Drg. no: 2904:038/002, rev. G, received 15/12/17) shall be provided and made available for the benefit of the occupiers of the proposed dwelling prior to its first being occupied. The whole of this curtilage shall thereafter be retained at all times for the sole benefit of the occupiers of the dwelling hereby approved. Reason- To protect the amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling hereby approved in accordance with the provisions Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies (April 2012) and the NPPF. Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 22

23 3. 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. 4. IN52 (Works Affecting Adjoining Land) It is noted that the foundations, eaves and guttering of the dwelling hereby approved closely abut your neighbour's land. This planning permission does not convey the right to enter land or to carry out works affecting or crossing the boundary with land which is not within your control without your neighbour's consent. This is, however, a civil matter and this planning consent is granted without prejudice to this. 5. IN53 (Party Wall Act 1996) This permission is granted under Town and Country Planning legislation and does not alter or impinge upon the rights of adjoining landowners under common law or under the Party Wall Act If any part of the development is physically attached to, or relies for support on, the neighbouring property the consent of the relevant landowners/occupiers will need to be obtained under the provisions of the Party Wall Act Voting: For Unanimous ITEM NO 07 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/00730/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 22 High Park Road, Broadstone, BH18 9DE PROPOSALS Demolition of existing chalet bungalow and erection of new house REGISTERED 23 May, 2017 APPLICANT Mr Scott WARD Broadstone CASE OFFICER Sarah Scannell The Application was DEFERRED ITEM NO 08 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01844/F APPLICATION TYPE Householder SITE ADDRESS 33 Harbour View Road, Poole, BH14 0PD PROPOSALS Extend over garage. Single storey extension at rear. Lift roof and convert loft space to bedroom and bathroom. 23

24 Additional 850mm drop kerb to the north. REGISTERED 4 December, 2017 APPLICANT Mr Langdon AGENT Seal Designs WARD Parkstone CASE OFFICER Julie Shearing The Application was before the Committee at the request of Cllr Challinor because of residents' concerns. Doug Evans, Development Team Manager, 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 Development Team Manager stated that the Scheme would enhance the character and appearance of the area and the impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity would remain similar to the existing arrangements. Mrs Woodall, Objector, expressed her views, details included: Was representing neighbours and Viewpoint Residents Association Impact on amenity Impact on privacy Additional overlooking beyond existing Accepted that the scheme broadly conformed with the character of the area Concerns raised over parking provision All other dwelling in the area provided suitable parking Increase in development in area led to increased parking issues Applicant had three vehicles Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: The parking provision would be wholly compliant in terms of dimensions The garage would accommodate a small to medium sized car Suggested that a further condition be added to address concerns related to parking. A Member stated that while she was sympathetic to the concerns of the objector, there was no planning reason to refuse planning permission. Other Members agreed with this statement and indicated their support for the scheme. The Chairman stated that the proposed scheme had been well designed and although he too sympathised with the objector, he mirrored the feelings of his colleagues and stated that there was no planning reason as to why the scheme should not be given planning permission. 24

25 Mrs Woodall summed up her views, details included: Concerned with parking arrangements Not against development Requested that the height of the development be monitored RESOLVED that this application be Granted with Conditions subject to the following: Conditions 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. PL01 (Plans Listing) 3. The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the access; garage; vehicle parking; and manoeuvring space shown on the approved plan have been constructed, and these shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those purposes at all times. Reason - In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009), and DM7 and DM8 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) Voting: For - Unanimous ITEM NO 09 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01727/F APPLICATION TYPE Householder SITE ADDRESS 17 Winterhayes Close, Poole, BH17 9HP PROPOSALS Proposed two storey extension to create new family room and master bedroom. REGISTERED 6 November, 2017 APPLICANT Mr Cocklin AGENT Mr Richards WARD Canford Heath West CASE OFFICER Julie Shearing The Application was before the Committee due to the proximity of the site to a Councillors home. Doug Evans, Development Team Manager, gave a site description and referred to Site 25

26 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 Development Team Manager stated that the proposal would enhance the character of the area and would not materially harm the amenity of any adjacent residents. Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included: The applicant had previously submitted a proposal that included a separate entrance to the extension but withdrew it when officers had indicated that it would be refused due to its appearing to be an annexe. The Applicant had since redesigned this scheme which was now considered to be sufficiently integrated and was therefore recommended for approval. A Member stated that he liked the design and that whilst larger than other properties in the area, it still respected the character and he would be supporting the scheme. The Chairman stated that the scheme complied with policies and that he would be support the Officer recommendation. RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted with Conditions subject to the following: Conditions 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. GN050 (Matching Materials) 3. PL01 (Plans Listing) Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) Voting: For Unanimous ITEM NO 10 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/01678/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS Flat 5, Katerose, 11 Durrant Road, Poole, BH14 8TX PROPOSALS Insertion of 2no. bathroom windows to the side elevations. Obscured glazed openable windows. 26

27 REGISTERED 30 October, 2017 APPLICANT Mrs Bell AGENT BeMa Architects WARD Penn Hill CASE OFFICER Sarah Scannell The Application was before the Committee because the site is adjacent to a Councillor's home. Doug Evans, Development Team Manager, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area. The Development Team Manager stated that he had nothing to add to the Report and that the scheme was recommended for approval. Members had no questions for clarification and nothing to add in terms of debate. RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted with Conditions subject to the following: Conditions 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. PL01 (Plans Listing) 3. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s)) Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the windows hereby approved shall be obscure-glazed and shall either be fixed lights 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 occupants of adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) Voting: For Unanimous 27