1

Borough of Poole

Planning Committee

List of Planning Applications

15 January, 2015

2

BOROUGH OF POOLE

Planning Committee

DATE: 15 January 2015 at 13.00

NOTES:

1. Items may be taken out of order and therefore no certain advice can be provided

about the time at which any item may be considered.

2. Applications can be determined in any manner notwithstanding the recommendation being made.

3. Councillors who are not members of the Planning Committee but who wish to

attend to make comments on any application on this list or accompanying agenda are required to give notice by informing the chairman or Head of Planning and Regeneration Services before the meeting.

4. Councillors who are interested in the detail of any matter to be considered should

consult the files with the relevant officers to avoid queries at the meeting.

5. Any members of the public wishing to make late additional representations should do so in writing or by contacting their Ward Councillors prior to the meeting.

6. Letters of representation referred to in these reports together with any other

background papers may be inspected at any time prior to the Meeting and these papers will be available at the Meeting.

7. For the purposes of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985,

unless otherwise stated against a particular report, “background papers” in accordance with section 100D will always include the case officer’s written report and any letters or memoranda of representation received (including correspondence from all internal Borough Council Service Units).

8. Councillors are advised that if they wish to refer to specific drawings/plans which

are not part of these papers to contact the relevant case officer at least 24 hours before the meeting to ensure these can be made available.

9. Members are advised that, in order to reduce the size of the agenda, where

conditions are marked on the plans list as Standard these will no longer be reported in full. The full wording of the condition can be found either in hard copy in the Members rooms, or via the following link on the Loop http://bopwss3/sus/ww/Shared%20Documents/Standard%20Conditions.doc

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Planning Committee 15 January 2015 at 13.00

Not before 13:00

01 338 Sandbanks Road, Poole, BH14 8HY APP/14/01318/F 4 02 66 Danecourt Road, Poole, BH14 0PQ APP/14/01115/F 11 03 336 Sandbanks Road, Poole, BH14 8HY APP/14/01521/F 19 04 16 Nairn Road, Poole, BH13 7NQ APP/14/01391/F 26

Not before 14:00

05 302-304 Sandbanks Road, Poole, BH14 8HX APP/14/01286/F 35 06 8 Grasmere Road, Poole, BH13 7RH APP/14/01375/F 43 07 16 Western Avenue, Poole, BH13 7AN APP/14/01444/F 53 08 27 Charborough Road, Broadstone, BH18 8NE APP/14/01278/F 57

4

ITEM NO 01 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01318/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 338 Sandbanks Road, Poole, BH14 8HY

PROPOSALS Demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment of

the site with the construction of a new building providing Six apartments, with associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space.

REGISTERED 9 October, 2014 APPLICANT Clark Estates UK Ltd AGENT Terence O'Rourke Limited WARD Penn Hill

CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan

INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee because of the planning history. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site with the construction of a new building providing six apartments, with associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space. MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to the planning history and context, impact on the character and appearance of the area. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is on the west side of Sandbanks Road close to its summit on Evening Hill. It sits between the road and the foreshore of Poole Harbour. The road level is circa 14m. AOD and the site slopes down in stages to the waters edge. The site is occupied by a detached house, the character of the area is residential comprising a mixture of blocks of flats and detached houses. There are houses on either side of the application site. Vehicle access is from Sandbanks Road and there is a detached garage close to the roadside, at the level of the road. On street parking is not possible on Sandbanks Road along the stretch in front of the site. The drive drops down the slope to the level of the house where there is another garage. There is a patio and lawn behind the house roughly at its FFL, the garden then drops steeply

5

to the edge of the harbour. The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order and there are mature and prominent trees on the edge of the water and across the front garden. Being adjacent to the harbour the site is subject to flooding. The site is in the area of sloping ground and shoreline character. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Feb 2014: Planning application Ref:13/01129 to demolish the existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site with the construction of a new building providing 8 apartments, including associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space was refused due to the size and scale of the building being overdevelopment of the site which would result in the loss of trees and harm to the character and appearance of the site and shoreline of the harbour, and would give rise to levels of overlooking detrimental to the amenities of neighbours. 336 Sandbanks Road Feb 2014: Planning Application Ref:13/01151 to demolish the existing house and erect a block of 8 flats was refused due to the size and scale of the building, being overdevelopment of the site and out of character with and harmful to the shoreline character, and would give rise to levels of overbearing and overlooking detrimental to the amenities of the neighbours. Aug 2014: A revised application Ref:14/00584 to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a block of 6no.apartments, including associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space was approved. Nov 2014: A revised application Ref:14/01037 to demolish the existing and erect a block of 7 flats, utilising the roof void of the 6 flat scheme, was refused due to: "The extent of the physical alterations to the roof and, most particularly, the introduction of glazing and balustrading to the rear elevation, would form a prominent high level feature that would significantly increase the perceived height of the building, emphasising its height relative to adjacent houses. This increased visual prominence relative to adjacent houses and the topography of the shoreline and would make the proposed building an overly dominant feature on the shoreline, detrimental to the appearance of the shoreline". PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS The Head of Transportation Services: No objection subject to conditions. Sufficient parking and visibility is provided to meet the needs of the development and maintain highway safety. The Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services: No objection to the waste

6

collection arrangements. Natural England: No objection subject to conditions restricting the time of year during which construction would occur. Poole Harbour Commissioner: No objections. REPRESENTATIONS Letters of representation have been received to the submitted scheme, objecting to the size and scale of the development, its design and the additional traffic, the loss of trees and loss of privacy. Lilliput and Neighbourhood Association objects to the design, size and appearance of the building and the loss of trees. No letters of representation have been received in response to the amended plans. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012) SEDTCS - Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on highway infrastructure. Dorset Heathlands SPD - Securing Contributions towards protecting SSSI Heathlands from harm. LOCAL CONTEXT Planning Obligation - Recreational Facilities SPG. Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on existing facilities. Affordable Housing SPD 2011. Parking and Highway Layout in Development SPD 2011 Shoreline Character SPG The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS06 Affordable Housing PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS29 Poole Harbour Spa and Ramsar Site PCS31 Sustainable Energy - General PCS32 Sustainable Homes PCS34 Flood Risk PCS36 Joint Working PCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (2012)

7

DM1 Design DM4 Coastal Zone DM7 Accessibility and Safety DM8 Demand Management DM9 Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity PLANNING JUDGEMENT The scheme proposes to demolish the existing house and erect a block of 6 flats. The scheme has been amended and designed to overcome the reason for refusing the previous application and the decision taken on recent applications at 336 Sandbanks Road. The size, shape and appearance of the proposed building now closely matches the scheme approved at 336 Sandbanks Road (Ref:14/00584 Aug 2014). It presents a scheme that would sit comfortably on the shoreline, preserving its character and appearance, the sloping ground and sit comfortably alongside the neighbouring buildings. Its position on the plot and shape of the building would preserve the character and appearance of the Sandbanks Road streetscene and retain sufficient space to provide an appropriate landscape setting for the building. Due to the position of the building on the site, the design of the balconies and inclusion of screens, the scheme would not give rise to opportunities for intrusive or harmful overlooking the neighbouring plots, the amenities of the occupiers would be preserved. Furthermore due to the siting of the building and the revised design, reducing the size and height of the building and shape of the roof the scheme would not give rise to overbearing or overshadowing that would be harmful to the amenities of the neighbours. The scheme provides sufficient parking in the basement and on the surface to meet the needs of the occupiers and their visitors. Sufficient visibility is achieved to maintain highway safety at the access to Sandbanks Road. The gradient of the basement drive is acceptable. Cycle storage and appropriate bin storage is provided. The previous scheme was also refused due to the loss of existing trees that contribute to the appearance of the site and shoreline. Whilst the amended scheme does not retain those trees, it does propose a schedule of replacement trees, distributed across the site, in a manner that would compensate for the loss of the existing trees and represent an improvement over the previously refused scheme. This revised schedule could be secured by condition. Due to the proximity to the harbour, it would be reasonable to restrict external construction to periods of the year that would not disturb protected species in Poole Harbour. An ecological survey supports the application, indicating an absence of protected species on the site. The site is elevated above the existing flood zones and the proposed development would be above the future flood zones. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging

8

Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September 2012. In accordance with CIL

Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council’s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole’s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development’s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD. The scheme, at 6 units and over 1000 Sq.m, has used the Affordable housing tariff to contribute £51,168.00 towards the off site provision of affordable housing. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £7,195.00 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £43,170 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. This application currently falls into CIL Zone A which at present has a CIL chargeable rate of £150 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The chargeable residential floorspace for this development will be calculated against this rate and indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as practicable after the day on which a planning permission first permits development.

Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter

for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attach to those

considerations

The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of

obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh

any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event, or the scheme should be

refused in any event.

In addition, a S106 contribution of £51,168.00 has been secured towards Affordable

Housing.

In addition to the above the LA would receive £350 per additional affordable house

provided.

CONCLUSION The revised scheme has overcome the previous reasons for refusal and proposes a size, scale and form of development that would sit comfortably in both the streetscene and shoreline characters, preserve the appearance of the site and would not give rise to overbearing or levels of overlooking that would be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbours.

9

BACKGROUND PAPERS None RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Grant With CIL Contribution and subject to a s.106 agreement to secure a financial contribution of £51,168.00 (plus admin fee) towards off site provision of Affordable Housing provision in accordance with Policies PCS06 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, Policy IN2(E) of the Delivering Poole's Infrastructure DPD 2012 and Affordable Housing SPD 2011

Conditions:

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. PL01 (Plans Listing) 3. GN050 (Matching Materials) 4. GN120 (Storage of Refuse) 5. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 6. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt) 7. HW090 (Access Gradient Not to Exceed 1:15) 8. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3) 9. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted) 10. AA01 (Non standard Condition) No external construction works related to the construction of foundations shall be undertaken between the 1st October and the 31st March. Reason: In accordance with PCS29 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and DM09 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted 2012. 11. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony) 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, the flat green roof above the upper basement flat shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area without the grant of further planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To protect the amenity and privacy of adjoining residential properties and the appearance of the building and shoreline character and in accordance with

10

Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009 and DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies 2012. 12. GN080 (Screening to Balcony) 13. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN43 (Section 106 Agreement)

11

ITEM NO 02 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01115/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 66 Danecourt Road, Poole, BH14 0PQ

PROPOSALS Sever land and erect 2 No 4 bed detached houses with

integral garage and 1 detached garage. Revised scheme subsequent to 14/00024/F.

REGISTERED 1 September, 2014 APPLICANT Lauder Property & Dorset Homes Ltd AGENT Anders Roberts & Assoc WARD Parkstone

CASE OFFICER James Larson

INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Woodcock. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Sever land and erect 2 No 4 bed detached houses with integral garage and 1 detached garage (Revised scheme subsequent to 14/00024/F). MAIN ISSUES Whether the proposed houses would contribute positively to the surrounding area, preserve residential privacy and amenity and highway safety, and would not harm protected trees. SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is on the southwest side of Danecourt Road and is occupied by no.66 Danecourt Road, a detached two-storey house which fronts the street. The upper half of the site reflects the pattern of development in Danecourt Road, which is of detached houses set back more than 10m. from the street within rectangular plots, allowing significant areas of frontages parking and landscaping. In addition the plots tend to drop in level significantly from northeast to southwest by as much as 3m. from the street to their rear boundary. The site also includes a substantial area of land beyond the immediate rectangular curtilage of the house, which is currently used as garden amenity by an adjacent home.

A driveway runs along the northwest side of the house from the street to a detached garage beyond the rear wall of the house. The proposals seek to utilise this existing drive but would demolish the garage and extend the access drive further into the rear southwest portion of the site.

12

Houses in North Road back onto the site, but are a significant distance from the southeast boundary of the site.

The site has some significant trees at both the front and rear of the site, all of which are protected by an area TPO. There is a small stream running through the site close to the northeast boundary in the lower southwest portion of the site. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 2014: Sever land and erect 3 No 4 bed detached houses with integral garages. Refused (APP/14/00024/F) for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of its cramped layout, parking and access in close proximity to neighbouring properties, and unneighbourly dominance of built form in close proximity to properties in North Road would result in the over development of the site harmful to its immediate surroundings and the amenities of adjoining properties as well as harmful to the reasonable enjoyment of the dwellings proposed. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policies PCS 05 and PCS 23 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009 and Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted 2012.

2008: Demolish existing houses and erect a 3/4 storey block of 9 flats with basement parking, 3 terrace houses and a pair of semi-detached houses (14 in total) at 66 & 68 Danecourt Road. Refused (08/35619/000/F) PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE 2014: Pre-application advice was given in relation to the scheme (PREA/14/00134). It was advised that the principle of two houses would have merit, subject to some amendments. These included relocating the southernmost house further away from the southeast boundary to allow for significant planting between that house and that boundary; and creating intermediate planting to include trees between the proposed development and the houses on North Road to provide screening. Further plans received included adjustments consistent with the initial advice given, and an application was therefore invited. CONSULTATIONS Adjoining properties and relevant consultees have been notified and site notice displayed. REPRESENTATIONS Representations have been received from 2 households in which the following concerns are expressed:

The proposals are still overdevelopment due to the size and plot coverage of the buildings.

Loss of protected trees.

The proposals would still prevent a replacement cherry tree from being replanted and would cause future pressure to remove an Oak tree due to proximity to the rear balcony

13

of House 1.

Increased traffic and highway safety dangers and accuracy of the developers Traffic Survey questioned.

The access is inappropriately sited too close to the neighbouring houses which would be harmful to their amenities.

The development would be close to a watercourse, and which the developer does not refer to in the forms.

Loss of privacy and light and would cause overbearing to the surrounding properties.

The proposed houses would be overlooked by the surrounding properties.

Loss of peace and tranquillity currently enjoyed by residents of North Road.

Concern over loss of wildlife habitat and harm to wildlife.

Increased strain on sewage system.

Noise, disturbance, damage and pollution would be caused during construction.

The Borough has met housing targets and therefore do not need to allow any additional houses.

The proposals would involve developing a residential garden and is therefore not a windfall site.

Natural England: Refer to advice given on previous application, when they advised that they do not provide individual comment in relation to protected species, but referred the LPA to their Standing Advise. Head of Transportation Services: No objections subject to conditions: for bollard lighting to be provided along the length of the driveway, for the provision of visibility splays, and the implementation of the proposed parking.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT There are no strategic implications. LOCAL CONTEXT The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS15 Access and Movement PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS29 Poole Harbour Spa and Ramsar Site PCS36 Joint Working PCS35 Energy and Resources Statements PCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places

14

Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted April 2012) DM1 Design DM8 Demand Management DM9 Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document SPD1 Parking & Highway Layout in Development National Planning Policy Framework Poole Characterisation Study 2010 PLANNING JUDGEMENT The proposed scheme includes the following main changes to the previously refused scheme (APP/14/00024/F):

It is now proposed to sever the land and erect 2 houses rather than 3.

The house closest to the southeast boundary is approximately 3m further away from the boundary than in the previous scheme.

The first and second floor areas of the buildings have been reduced in length by approximately 1-2m, but have been increased in width by approximately 1m. In addition the buildings now include significantly increased single storey areas on the side and rear elevations.

The parking/turning area has been reduced in size from that previously refused; now including a more conventional tandem arrangement to the side of each house.

The proposals include an extension to the landscape planting running parallel with the proposed driveway from that of the previously refused scheme, which also results in the narrowing of the access driveway to 3.25m.

The parking layout for the existing house, no.66 is the same as that of the previously refused application.

A single storey garage is now proposed to be sited opposite Unit 1 for its use.

The rear first floor terrace area for Unit 1 has been increased in size and both Units now include ground floor patio areas to the rear.

Character and appearance Whilst the houses, in terms of their layout, density and plot size, would not follow the prevailing pattern of development which mostly fronts onto the street, the proposed houses, by virtue of their siting on lower ground relative to the existing house and entrance from Danecourt Road and their significant distance from the street, would not be readily visible from the public realm. Furthermore the reduction in number of houses has resulted in significantly less plot coverage and greater distance between the houses at first floor level and from Unit 1 to the southeast boundary. This would present a far more spacious layout, allowing greater gaps and glimpses to the surrounding landscaping and trees, which would be respectful of the setting of the site and its surroundings. The proposals would utilise the existing driveway entrance to the site, and would assemble sufficient land to accommodate the proposed houses, and adequate amenity space and

15

parking. The proposal could therefore be achieved without detriment to the character of the area as viewed from the public realm which would remain unaltered and the proposals would therefore contribute positively to the appearance of the area. A detailed landscaping scheme could be required by condition to retain the existing landscape features and secure additional planting to improve the landscape setting of the proposed houses. In particular the scheme would benefit from increased buffer planting in the increased gap between Unit 1 and the southeast boundary to not only increase privacy and screening but to improve the landscape character of the site and surroundings. Privacy and amenity Given the siting of the proposed houses and their distance from the surrounding houses and more important amenity areas of those houses, the proposals would not give rise to any material loss of light, outlook, or cause overbearing. In addition the proposed first floor and roof windows and balconies would only allow more distant or oblique views towards the surrounding properties, such that the privacy of these homes and the proposed dwellings would not be materially harmed. The proposed driveway would run parallel to the side boundaries of both nos 66 and 64 Danecourt Road. However, given that the proposals are only for 2 houses, the number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed development during the course of the day would not be excessive or result in materially harmful noise or disturbance to the amenities of the adjoining homes. Trees The proposed dwellings would not result in a significant increase in projection of the rear terrace areas towards the trees to the southwest. Furthermore the main bulk of the two buildings has been set further away from the trees and the reduction in dwelling number would allow the occupiers more unshaded outdoor amenity space. It is therefore considered that the trees, whilst casting some shading over the buildings, would not cause excessive shading such that would warrant severe pruning or removal at a later date. Given the tree constraints on the site, it would be appropriate to remove Permitted Development Rights for further extensions and outbuildings in order to give the LPA greater control over development which could be harmful to trees. The trees shown to be removed are either of poor quality or of low public amenity value. Their loss is therefore considered to be acceptable, particularly given that the more important trees on the site are being retained. Furthermore the applicant has proposed to plant five replacement trees on the site, which would mitigate any tree loss, and this should be secured by condition. Bin Storage ECPS previously confirmed that given the length of the driveway that their operatives would not collect refuse from the proposed houses, and it would be the responsibility of the occupiers to transport their bins to the site entrance for kerbside collection.

Parking Transportation Services have confirmed that they have no objection on highway safety grounds to the siting of the proposed dwellings and the access arrangements, and the proposals would provide sufficient onsite parking.

16

The scheme should be required to include lighting along the driveway; the most appropriate form being lit bollards. The bollard lights would provide illumination to increase the safety of the proposed access drive, and if low level lighting was correctly shielded such that only the ground was illuminated, then they would not cause excessive glare or be materially harmful to the amenities of the surrounding residents. The details of bollard lighting to be provided should therefore be secured by condition. Transportation Services are satisfied with the content of the recent speed survey carried out by Bellamy Roberts LLP and submitted with the previous application. This showed that the eastbound 'stopping sight distance' (SSD) is acceptable because in reality vehicles travelling eastbound would not be travelling tight to the southern kerb edge. They would be on the opposite side of the carriage way, so in reality the SSD would be greater from this approach and by default driver visibility at the access would be greater due to the proposed access being on the opposite side of the road to the approaching east bound traffic. The proposed vehicle access with the visibility envelopes as detailed are therefore acceptable. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems It is necessary to condition the proposals to be built to a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (or any equivalent successor), in order to ensure that the scheme is sustainable and energy efficient. In addition, the proposed areas of vehicle hard standing should be constructed using a method of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems to prevent onsite flooding, and relieve pressure on existing storm drains. This can be secured by condition. Protected species The applicant submitted an Ecology Report with the previously refused scheme for three houses which confirmed that there were no signs of any protected species, reptiles, Badgers, Barn Owls etc. found at the site, which has low ecological value. The ecologist advised that the development would not have a significant impact on the local population of protected species or habitats. Given the Report was undertaken recently, in 2014 it is still considered to be relevant. Therefore, in accordance with Natural England’s Standing Advice, the proposals would be acceptable in terms of their impacts upon wildlife, but any approval should include the following informative note:

Should any protected species or evidence of protected species be found prior to or during the development, all works must stop immediately and an ecological consultant contacted for further advice before works can proceed. All contractors working on site should be made aware of the advice and provided with the contact details of a relevant ecological consultant.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September 2012. In accordance with CIL

Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable

17

development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council’s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole’s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development’s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £2878 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £17268 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. This application currently falls into CIL Zone B which at present has a CIL chargeable rate of £100 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The chargeable residential floorspace for this development will be calculated against this rate and indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as practicable after the day on which a planning permission first permits development.

Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter

for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attached to those

considerations.

The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of

obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh

any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event, or the scheme should be

refused in any event.

CONCLUSION The proposed houses would contribute positively to the surrounding area, preserve residential privacy and amenity and highway safety, and would not harm significant protected trees. The proposals are therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted With CIL Contribution

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The proposals shall be finished with the materials as detailed on the approved plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that the external appearance of the buildings are satisfactory and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February 2009.

18

3. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Prior to the commencement of development, a lighting scheme for the proposed driveway shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include low level down lighting, to provide illumination for the driveway but prevent glare to the surrounding properties. The approved details shall thereafter be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and thereafter retained. Reason - In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy PCS5 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policy DM8 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012),and to minimise harm to neighbouring amenities in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009) and Policy DM1 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (2009). 4. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development) 5. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 6. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 7. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) 8. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted) 9. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3) 10. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt) 11. TR060 (Tree Protection - No Trenches/Pipe Runs) 12. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) (5 trees) 13. GN020 (Screen Fencing/Walling) 14. PL01 (Plans Listing) Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN00 (Non Standard Informative) Should any protected species or evidence of protected species be found prior to or during the development, all works must stop immediately and an ecological consultant contacted for further advice before works can proceed. All contractors working on site should be made aware of this advice and provided with the contact details of a relevant ecological consultant.

19

ITEM NO 03 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01521/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 336 Sandbanks Road, Poole, BH14 8HY

PROPOSALS Demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment of

the site with the construction of a new building providing 7 apartments, including associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space.

REGISTERED 27 November, 2014 APPLICANT ARB Development Projects Limited AGENT Terence O'Rourke Ltd WARD Penn Hill

CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan

INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee due to the planning history. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site with the construction of a new building providing 7 apartments, including associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space. MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to the planning history, the impact on the character and appearance of the shoreline. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is on the west side of Sandbanks Road close to its summit on Evening Hill. It sits between the road and the edge of Poole Harbour. The road level is circa 12m AOD and the site slopes down in stages to the waters edge. The site is occupied by a detached house and the character of the area is residential comprising a mix of blocks of flats and detached houses. There are detached houses on either side of the application site. Vehicle access is from Sandbanks Road and there is a garage adjacent to the house with the drive descending along the north boundary of the site. On street parking is prohibited on Sandbanks Road along the stretch in front of the site. The front garden has been terraced with ponds and lawns. There is a lawn behind the house, approximately 1m below the floor level of the house, and terraces, rockeries and

20

steps dropping steeply to the waters edge of the harbour. The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order and there are mature and dominant trees on the harbour's edge and across the front garden. Being adjacent to the harbour, the site is subject to flooding. The site is in the area of sloping ground and shoreline character. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Feb 2014: Planning Application 13/01151 to demolish the existing house and erect a block of 8 flats was refused due to:

The proposal would, due to its height and mass appear unduly prominent when viewed from Poole Harbour and would therefore be detrimental to the character and setting of the harbour.

The scheme would, due to its height, size and depth of projection into the site give rise to levels of overbearing, overlooking and loss of privacy materially harmful to the amenities of the adjacent residents.

Aug 2014: A revised scheme to demolish the existing dwelling and redevelop the site by the construction of a new building providing 6no.apartments, including associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space was approved. (14/00584) Nov 2014: A revised scheme to demolish the existing and erect a block of 7 flats was refused due to the impact the increased visual prominence relative to adjacent houses and the topography of the shoreline and would make the proposed building an overly dominant feature on the shoreline, detrimental to the appearance of the shoreline. (14/01037) 338 Sandbanks Road. Feb 2014. Planning application to demolish the existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site with the construction of a new building providing 8 flats, including associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space was refused due to the size and scale of the building being overdevelopment of the site which would result in the loss of trees and harm to the character and appearance of the site and shoreline of the harbour, and would give rise to levels of overlooking detrimental to the amenities of neighbours. (13/01129) Nov 2014. Planning application to demolish the existing building and erect a block of 6 flats is currently under consideration. (14/01318) PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS Natural England: No objection.

21

Poole Harbour Commissioners: No objection. Environment Agency: No objection. REPRESENTATIONS None at time of writing PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT National Planning Policy Framework (2012) SEDTCS - Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on highway infrastructure. Dorset Heathlands SPD - Securing Contributions towards protecting SSSI Heathlands from harm. LOCAL CONTEXT Planning Obligation - Recreational Facilities SPG. Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on existing facilities. Affordable Housing SPD 2011. Parking and Highway Layout in Development SPD 2011 Shoreline Character SPG The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS06 Affordable Housing PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS29 Poole Harbour Spa and Ramsar Site PCS31 Sustainable Energy - General PCS32 Sustainable Homes PCS36 Joint Working PCS34 Flood Risk PCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (2012) DM1 Design DM4 Coastal Zone DM7 Accessibility and Safety DM8 Demand Management DM9 Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity PLANNING JUDGEMENT The scheme proposes to demolish the existing house and erect a block of 7 flats, seeking to overcome the reasons leading to the recent refusal. The scheme retains the design of the 6 flat scheme and proposes to incorporate a 7th flat in the roof void.

22

The changes to the roof form to accommodate the 7th flat are now entirely contained within the sloping roof. Outlook and amenity space for the additional flat is provided on the harbour side elevation (west elevation) by way of cutting into the roof space, rather than projecting a dormer beyond the roof slope, this would significantly reduce the bulk and prominence of the roof accommodation; sit comfortably within the scale and mass of the building; and not give rise to the concerns regarding the additional prominence of the roof caused by the previous scheme that led to the harm to the appearance of the shoreline. The balustrades around the terraces would be part of the roof form, using the same materials, blending in perfectly with the overall roof, minimising the perception of the presence of the top floor. The recessed approach to the rear facing windows would mimic the design of the accommodation within the roof form of the adjoining house at 330 Sandbanks Road. Roof lights would be added to the top and other three sides of the roof to provide light and outlook to other rooms, these would not project above the plane of the roof and would not compromise the amenity of the neighbours. As such the proposed scheme would have no different impact on the character and appearance of the Sandbanks Road streetscene. The roof slope, wrapping around the external terrace would provide sufficient screening to prevent potentially intrusive sideways views from the external space, preserving the amenities of the neighbours. Sufficient parking, access, bin and bike stores are provided to meet the needs of the development and maintain highway safety. There are no other changes to the scheme to accommodate the 7th flat, the ground and first floor and 2 lower floors remain as approved by the 2014 6 flat scheme. The building remains sufficiently elevated to protect it from flooding in the event of a 1:200 year flood occurring over the lifetime of development. The same trees are proposed for removal to facilitate the development, which can be readily compensated for due to their low quality and age, with replacement trees secured by condition. Being a new build it would be readily possible to secure an energy efficient and sustainable development. PV/solar thermal panels are proposed for the roof. A condition could be used to ensure the scheme achieves at least level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September 2012. In accordance with CIL

Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the

23

Council’s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole’s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development’s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD. The scheme, at 7 units and over 1000 Sq.m, has used the Affordable housing tariff to contribute £62,784.00 towards the off site provision of affordable housing, this is secured via a S.106 agreement. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £8,634 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £51,804 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. This application currently falls into CIL Zone A which at present has a CIL chargeable rate of £150 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The chargeable residential floorspace for this development will be calculated against this rate and indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as practicable after the day on which a planning permission first permits development.

Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter

for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attach to those

considerations

The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of

obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh

any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event, or the scheme should be

refused in any event.

In addition a S106 contribution of £62,784.00 has been secured towards Affordable

Housing. In addition to the above the LA would receive £350 per additional affordable

house provided.

CONCLUSION The changes to the design of the roof to provide the 7th flat would sit comfortably within the roof slope of the approved building, would not dominate the roof and would increase the perceived height of the building and mass of its roof, which would sit comfortably on the shoreline and preserve its character and appearance. The revised design overcomes the previous reasons for refusal. The application is therefore recommended for approval. BACKGROUND PAPERS None

24

RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Grant With CIL Contribution and subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing a financial contribution of £62,784 (plus admin fee) towards off site provision of Affordable Housing provision in accordance with Policies PCS06 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, Policy IN2(E) of the Delivering Poole's Infrastructure DPD 2012 and Affordable Housing SPD 2011

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. PL01 (Plans Listing) 3. GN050 (Matching Materials) 4. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s)) Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the windows on the north and south side elevations indicated as 'OG' 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). 5. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 6. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt) 7. HW090 (Access Gradient Not to Exceed 1:15) 8. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3) 9. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted) 10. AA01 (Non standard Condition) No external construction works related to the construction of foundations shall be undertaken between the 1st October and the 31st March. Reason: In accordance with PCS29 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and DM09 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted 2012. 11. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony) 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, the flat green roof above the upper basement floor flat shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar

25

amenity area without the grant of further planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To protect the amenity and privacy of adjoining residential properties and the appearance of the building and shoreline character and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009 and DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies 2012. 12. GN080 (Screening to Balcony) 13. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 14. GN120 (Storage of Refuse) Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN43 (Section 106 Agreement)

26

ITEM NO 04 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01391/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 16 Nairn Road, Poole, BH13 7NQ

PROPOSALS Demolition of existing three storey house and replacement

with new three storey house. REGISTERED 31 October, 2014 APPLICANT Mr Gill AGENT rbstudio ltd WARD Canford Cliffs

CASE OFFICER Darryl Howells

INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee by Councillor Mrs. Haines in response to residents' concerns. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Demolition of existing three storey house and replacement with a three storey house.

MAIN ISSUES

Consider the impact of the proposed on the character and appearance of the area, neighbouring amenities, protected trees and highway safety.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is located on the west side of Nairn Road, and is occupied by a detached 3-storey house. The site slopes significantly down from the road frontage to the rear of the site by approximately 3m. There are protected trees to the front and rear of the site, all of which make a positive contribution to the visual amenities of the area either individually or as part of a group. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

10 Nairn Road 2012 - An application to demolish the existing house and erect a replacement house of contemporary architectural form was approved. This incorporated a flat roof and was 3-storeys to the rear / 2-storeys from the front due to the site's topography. (APP/12/01299/F)

27

12 Nairn Road 2012 - An application to demolish the existing house and garage and the construction of a replacement dwelling with integral garage was approved. This dwelling is contemporary in appearance, 2-storeys with large flat roofs and has been built. (APP/12/01312/F) 14 Nairn Road 2008 / 2009 - An application to demolish the existing bungalow and erect a replacement dwelling was refused and dismissed on appeal to the Secretary of State. The reasons for refusal referred to the impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area, protected trees and the living conditions of future and neighbouring occupiers. (APP/08/13324/001/F) 2009 - An application to demolish the existing bungalow and erect a detached, 5-bed, 4-storey house was refused. (APP/08/13324/002/F) 2009 - An application to demolish the existing bungalow and erect a detached, 5-bed, 2/4 storey split-level house was approved. This dwelling was contemporary in its appearance, materials and flat roofed. (APP/09/00554/F) 2010 - An application to demolish the existing house and erect a detached, 5-bed, 3-storey split-level house with basements and integral garage was approved. This house has been built, and is contemporary in its appearance, materials and flat roof. (APP/10/00357/F) 16 Nairn Road 2007 - An application to demolish the house and erect 2 detached houses was refused. (07/13125/003/F) 2011 / 2012 - An application to demolish the existing house and erect a block of 5 back-to-back cluster houses was refused and dismissed on appeal to the Secretary of State. The principle reasons for refusal were impact upon the character and appearance of the area; neighbouring amenities; lack of useable private amenity space; and loss of protected trees / relationship to those remaining (APP/11/01352/F). The Inspector's decision is material to the consideration of this current application. 2013 - An Outline planning application APP/12/01518/P to demolish the existing dwelling, sever land and erect 2 detached houses with integral garages was refused. A subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State. The Inspector's decision is material to the consideration of this current application. (APP/12/01518/P) 18 Nairn Road 2012 - An application to reconfigure the internal layout of 2no. existing flats:- Flat 1 to incorporate ground, first and second floor and flat 2 to incorporate basement. External work to include cladding and render, new roof and windows, single storey extension between existing garage and building, two-storey extension to front and formation of stairs and side access to flat 2, was approved. (APP/12/00504/F)

28

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None. CONSULTATIONS None. REPRESENTATIONS Site notice displayed and neighbour notification letters sent. One Letter of support has been received, commenting that:

the existing dwelling is at odds with the character of the street which is now very modern, contemporary designs;

the neighbour's house at no.14 is significantly larger than the current scheme for no.16; and

the proposal will positively contribute to the area. Seven local residents and the Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents Association have objected to the proposals on the following grounds:

the scheme is too large for the site and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene;

the scheme breaches a neighbour's Right to Light;

its position adjacent to no.14's boundary is too close;

the proposals will lead to loss of residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers including the loss of natural light to the rear garden of no.14;

the scheme will lead to pressure to fell trees;

the scheme does not enhance the amenities of the occupiers; and

the current proposal lacks sufficient information regarding the lift system and construction of walls and basement.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS31 Sustainable Energy - General

29

PCS32 Sustainable Homes PCS35 Energy And Resources Statements PCS36 Joint Working PCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012) DM1 Design DM8 Demand management DM9 Greenspace and Biodiversity Parking and Highway Layout in New development SPD (June 2011) PLANNING JUDGEMENT The proposed development seeks planning permission to demolish the existing house, and erect a contemporary detached dwelling, with flat roofs. From the road frontage the house would appear as 2-storeys, but to the rear, owing to the topography to the site, the proposed house would be 3-storeys. Demolition of the Existing House The demolition of the existing house is acceptable as its impact and appearance within the street scene is minimal and it makes no significant positive contribution to the character of the area. Both Planning Inspectors took this view. Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the Area Policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management DPD support redevelopment proposals provided that the proposed development positively contributes to the local distinctiveness of the area, and does not cause harm to protected trees. The Characterisation Study (April 2010) for the area identifies it as being typically 'Suburban Detached Housing' and recognises that bespoke designed houses and maintaining a consistent urban grain can positively enhance an area's distinctiveness. In the Planning Inspectors' view, the character and appearance of the area consisted of "a variety of building styles - some contemporary and others more traditional......however its essential and distinctive character is still that of large detached houses set in generous, well landscaped/ trees plots". The prevailing pattern of development consists of individual houses set within spacious landscaped grounds. The plot has a 26m. frontage to Nairn Road. The proposed house would occupy almost the full width of the site (22m.) at basement level, but only 15.8m. at ground floor level and 16.8m. at first-floor level. The proposed house would maintain the established building line, being some 9m. back from the site's frontage, consistent with neighbouring properties. The contemporary architectural form would include a first floor glazed facade within a metal clad frame. The design has had regard to the first Planning Inspector decision, which stated that “Its replacement would have a contemporary, flat

30

roofed design and more of a horizontal emphasis, which I consider to be acceptable in principle – its neighbouring house at no. 14 and some others in the vicinity are also of modern designs". Given the evolving character and appearance of the street, including the contemporary appearance of nos. 12 & 14 Nairn Road, the proposed dwelling will positively contribute to the local distinctiveness of the area. When dismissing the five 'cluster-house' application, the Inspector noted that in oblique views from Nairn Road and from Dornie Road its appearance would be harmful by reason that:

“the building’s depth would be visible and the combined effects of the greater width, height and depth would be apparent. The considerable overall bulk and mass would not be adequately relieved by the articulation of its elevations and the greater depth of the upper floors would contrast with the neighbouring buildings at 18 and 14 Nairn Road, the small scale site plan of the latter not adequately conveying the limited depth of the first floor”.

In response, the bulk of the proposed dwelling would now reflect the siting of the existing house. A 2-storey projecting rear wing of the building adjacent to the northern boundary together with the articulation of the building would make it less prominent and intrusive when compared to the appeal scheme. The proposed development would therefore preserve and enhance the character of the area and therefore accords with Policies PCS05 & PCS23 of the Core Strategy and DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (adopted 2012) Impact upon Neighbouring Amenities The occupiers of 14 Nairn Road have provided an assessment of the impact of the proposed house on the daylight and sunlight currently enjoyed by their property. This concludes "that the proposed development could infringe on both the daylight and sunlight currently enjoyed by their property". Whilst Rights to Light are not a material planning consideration, but a civil matter, the consideration of the planning application, includes a consideration of residential amenities and Policy DM1 is explicit in respect of this including considerations of dominance; loss of natural light; overshadowing; and privacy. The position of the proposed house, whilst closer to the side boundary with no.14 Nairn Road, is unlikely to cause material harm to the amenities of no. 14 because of the separation distance retained. The proposed house would appear as 2-storeys from the neighbour's garden due to the basement level being screened by intervening boundary treatment. The proposed house would cause some loss of sunlight due to overshadowing of the main terrace at the rear of no.14, however any loss of light is not considered to be materially harmful in the summer months, when the terrace will typically be mos. The internal layout of the proposed house would not give rise to any material loss of privacy since a side door would be screened by boundary treatment and further back into the site a secondary window to the lounge would be obscure glazed to protect neighbouring amenities. The proposed house would also be closer to the side boundary with no.18 Nairn Road and

31

its annex, however it would not cause material harm to the amenities of their occupiers due to the separation distance retained between the houses and also their orientation. Some oblique views of no. 18 Nairn Road's first floor windows might be possible from the proposed first-floor lounge within the projecting rear 'wing' of the proposed house, but given the angle and the separation in excess of 23m. any loss of privacy would not be material. Furthermore due to the proposed house’s position to the north of no. 18, there would be no overshadowing of no. 18. The internal layout of the proposed house would not give rise to material harm to neighbouring amenities. The use of the flat roof above the garden store as a roof terrace would be overbearing and intrusive because of its close proximity to the boundary with no.18 Nairn Road. Moreover any proposed screening to prevent overlooking would be likely to add to the visual mass of the building and be overly dominate on the neighbour's terrace area. The use of this and other flat roofs as 'terraces should therefore be prevented by condition. The proposed second-floor terrace (off the master bedroom) would have some views towards the neighbour's rear garden but as has been observed by the Planning Inspectors "mutual overlooking of back gardens is commonplace within built-up areas". The proposed development would not harm the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and therefore accords with the provisions of Policies PCS23 of the Core Strategy and DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (adopted 2012) Impact to Protected Trees The relationship to the protected trees to the front of the site is retained, and would ensure that there is no loss of trees. The trees to the frontage were seen as important features and characteristics to the area by the Inspector, so ensuring their retention is important and this should be secured by condition. To the rear of the site, the depth of the building has been reduced in order to create separation between it and the canopies of the retained trees. The scheme will require the removal of 8 trees from the rear of the site, 7 of which are category C and therefore not considered worthy of retention according to arboricultural advice. The 8th tree to be removed is a Category B, namely a Scots Pine (T13). The Senior Arboricultural Officer considers that the tree's removal is acceptable subject to a replacement planting of a Scots Pine (or similar) is secured by condition. A revised arboricultural method statement should also be secured by condition. Highway Safety The proposed dwelling will have two surface car parking spaces which is sufficient to meet the parking standards as set out in the Council's Parking & Highway Layout in New Development SPD (adopted 2011). A furthermore three spaces would be available within the basement, accessed by an automated vehicular lift system which would free the forecourt for hard and soft landscape in which to set the new dwelling. Turning space is provided on site to ensure vehicles can enter and exit in a forward gear. Visibility along Nairn Road at the entrance to the site is good and would be sufficient to maintain pedestrian and highway safety.

32

INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September 2012. In accordance with CIL

Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council’s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole’s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development’s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive no government grant under the New Homes Bonus as there is not a net gain in residential units. This application currently falls into CIL Zone A which at present has a CIL chargeable rate of £150 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The chargeable residential floorspace for this development will be calculated against this rate and indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as practicable after the day on which a planning permission first permits development.

Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter

for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attach to those

considerations

The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of

obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh

any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development accords with adopted planning policies. RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Grant With CIL Contribution

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s)) Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the window marked as 03* on drawing number P012 received 3rd December 2014 on the northern elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass in a form sufficient to

33

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). 3. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) 4. GN030 (Sample of Materials) 5. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony) 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, the flat roof areas of any roof including the garden store shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area without the grant of further planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To protect the amenity and privacy of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). 6. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3) 7. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential) 8. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required) 9. TR040 (Pre-commencement Meeting) 10. TR050 (Tree Protection-No Fires/Mixing/Storage) 11. TR060 (Tree Protection - No Trenches/Pipe Runs) 12. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) (1 tree) 13. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 14. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 15. PL01 (Plans Listing) 16. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The existing hedge that exists between the application site and no. 14 Nairn Road shall be retained and reinforced with additional planting to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

34

These features shall also be safeguarded by the erection of protective of a type and along a line to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority throughout the development phase. Such fencing shall be erected in accordance with the agreed details before any equipment or machinery are brought on to the site and before any ground clearance, demolition or construction work, including the erection of site huts, is commenced and shall not be removed or breached during construction operations without prior written approval, but shall remain in place for the entire development phase and until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Within the areas so fenced there shall be no development or development- related activity of any description, including the deposit of spoil, the storage of materials and the mixing of concrete. Reason - To maintain and enhance the appearance of the site/locality and to ensure that the existing landscape features to be retained are adequately protected from damage during the construction works in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Core Strategy (adopted 2009) and Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (adopted 2012). Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval)

35

ITEM NO 05 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01286/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 302-304 Sandbanks Road, Poole, BH14 8HX

PROPOSALS Demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of

4 detached houses with integral garaging at 302 - 304 Sandbanks Road, Poole.

REGISTERED 8 October, 2014 APPLICANT Fox Homes Ltd AGENT David James Architects and Associates ltd WARD Penn Hill

CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan

INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr Parker. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of 4 detached houses with integral garaging at 302 - 304 Sandbanks Road, Poole. MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to the planning history, the impact on the character and appearance of the area and streetscene, highway safety and residential amenity. SITE DESCRIPTION The application site consists of the plots of two detached chalet bungalows, No's 302 and 304 Sandbanks Road, that span between Sandbanks Road and Dorset Lake Avenue and have frontage to both roads. The character of the area is predominately residential with Dorset Lake Avenue comprising mainly of detached houses and Sandbanks Road a mixture of detached houses and blocks of flats. The area is going through a process of renewal with many of the original houses being demolished and replaced, some intensification through plot division and some blocks of flats. This has resulted in variety in design of the buildings. Because of their depth and configuration some of the nearby dual-frontage plots along Sandbanks/Dorset Lake Avenue have already been redeveloped with homes fronting both roads. Close to the site to the north is the Lilliput Local centre, consisting of a mix of commercial uses on the ground floor with flats above.

36

Vehicle access is possible from both roads to both sites and both have off road parking and garages. There are mature hedges and landscape on both frontages. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: On the sites subject to this application: 302 Sandbanks Road: 2012: Sever the rear garden and erect a 3-storey detached dwelling with integral garage; associated parking and modification of existing access to Dorset Lake Avenue. Refused due to its siting; size; layout; reliance on roof terrace for amenity space; overbearing; overshadowing and loss of privacy that would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupier of No.302 Sandbanks Road; height, size, horizontal emphasis of design; plot coverage as evidenced by the lack of amenity space; lack of context resulting in a prominent form of development that would not have regard to the existing streetscene along Dorset Lake Avenue; and failing to preserve the character and appearance of the area (12/01398/F). This decision was subject to an appeal, which was dismissed due to the cramped nature of the development; its failure to have regard for the grain of development in the area; and the overbearing and impact on privacy of the neighbour at 302 Sandbanks Road. 304 Sandbanks Road: 2012: Demolish the existing and erect a 3/4 storey block of 3 apartments and a 2-storey detached dwelling (total 4) with integral garages, associated parking spaces and formation of access to Sandbanks Road and Dorset Lake Avenue. Refused due to the amount of plot coverage representing an excessive amount of development which compromises the provision of amenity space for the residents; its design, height, massing, failing to sit comfortably in the streetscene; the level of plot coverage failing to preserve or enhance the prevailing character of the area and appearance of the streetscene; and the erection of a block of apartments on the Sandbanks Road frontage being out of character with and harmful to the prevailing pattern of detached houses (12/00869/F). An appeal against this decision was allowed in 2013, the Inspector accepting that there was sufficient variety in the type of accommodation in the area to absorb apartments without harm; that the size of the building on Sandbanks Road would preserve the appearance of the streetscene; and that sufficient amenity space would be provided. 2013: Demolish the existing and erect a pair of semi-detached dwellings and a detached dwelling with integral garages, associated parking spaces and formation of an access to Dorset Lake Avenue (existing access onto Sandbanks road to be stopped-up) was refused due to its size, siting and design the semi detached houses would fail to have regard to the prevailing shape and style of development along Sandbanks Road, appear prominent and intrusive in the streetscene and would fail to integrate comfortably, harmful to the character and appearance of the area (13/00025) 302 & 304 Sandbanks Road. 2014: Demolish the existing and erect 5 detached house, 3 accessed from Sandbanks Road and 2 accessed from Dorset Lake Avenue was refused due to the size, bulk and

37

mass of houses on Sandbanks Road, resulting in overdevelopment of the site that would dominate the streetscene and fail to preserve the character and appearance of the area. This decision was the subject of an appeal. In dismissing the appeal the Inspector concluded that "the bulk and mass of the dwellings .... would be significantly greater than the existing bungalows. Though a larger amount of development may be appropriate, the proposed dwellings would have a far greater mass and be higher than other residential development on the adjacent plots." The Inspector also commented that the proposed three houses would be sited well forward of the existing bungalows, closer to the road than the existing residential development along this part of Sandbanks Road and that the front garden would be dominated by hard landscaping. The inspector also commented that "As is shown in the submitted plans the visual impression of development would be of a continuous line of building and the heavy assertive projection at first floor level would dominate what are currently verdant front gardens." It was concluded that the scheme was not appropriate for its context and the harm that would arise would outweigh any benefits of increasing the supply of housing in a sustainable location. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Adjoining/nearby relevant sites: 9 Dorset Lake Avenue, 304a Sandbanks Road, r/o 306 Sandbanks Road. Mar 2014. Severance of land on Dorset Lake Avenue and the erection of a detached house and revised parking for the existing houses was approved . (14/00098) 308 Sandbanks Road. Renewal of a 2007 consent to demolish the existing house and erect a block of 4 flats approved. This has not been implemented (11/00641/F). 1 Dorset Lake Avenue. Demolition of the existing house and erection of 2 detached houses approved. This has been implemented (03/00394/007). 3 Dorset Lake Avenue. Demolish the existing house and erect a part 2-storey / part 3-storey block of ground floor commercial with flats above; 2 detached houses fronting Dorset Lake Avenue; and basement parking under the whole site. Allowed at appeal. This has not been implemented (10/01021/F). February 2014: Planning application Ref:13/01515 to demolish the existing house and erect 4 no. detached houses was approved. PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None

38

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS The Head of Transportation Services: No objection subject to conditions. Natural England: No objection. REPRESENTATIONS Letters of representation have been received objecting to the size of the houses; their height and four storeys being out of keeping with the size of surrounding buildings; the plot coverage; the proximity of the houses to each other and the impact on the character and appearance of the area and streetscene and being contrary to PCS05 and PCS23; overlooking between the houses and overbearing to adjoining properties; Increase in traffic movements; and impact on drainage and flood risk. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT National Planning Policy Framework (2012) SEDTCS - Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on highway infrastructure. Dorset Heathlands SPD - Securing Contributions towards protecting SSSI Heathlands from harm. LOCAL CONTEXT Planning Obligation - Recreational Facilities SPG. Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on existing facilities. The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS31 Sustainable Energy - General PCS32 Sustainable Homes PCS36 Joint Working PCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (2012) DM1 Design DM7 Accessibility and Safety DM8 Demand Management Supplementary Planning Document SPD1 Parking & Highway Layout in Development

39

PLANNING JUDGEMENT The scheme proposes to demolish the existing bungalows and erect four detached houses, two fronting and accessed from Sandbanks Road and two accessed from and fronting Dorset Lake Avenue. The application seeks to overcome the reasons for refusing the previous application by reducing the number of houses and changing the design of those fronting Sandbanks Road. Whilst the scheme was submitted prior to receipt of the Inspector's decision dismissing the 5 house scheme, the consideration of this application takes full account of the details of that decision. The houses fronting Dorset Lake Avenue did not cause harm contributing to the reason for refusal, the design, siting, layout and size of these 2 houses remains as per the previous scheme. Whilst there has been a change to the context with the approval of another house to the south of No.9 Dorset Lake Avenue, the 2 houses on Dorset Lake Avenue remain acceptable in all respects. Reducing the number of houses fronting Sandbanks Road results in plots that are the same width as the existing two plots. Their shallower depth is consistent with existing consents to sever land and erect additional houses, as at 9 Dorset Lake Avenue and 3 Dorset Lake Avenue. As such the proposed plots can be considered as having assembled sufficient land to preserve the prevailing pattern and character of the area in accordance with PCS05. The revised design introduces layers of articulation to the front elevation and roof form of both houses to reduce their visual bulk and dominance in the streetscene. This includes setting the main body of the houses further back from the front of the site. The southern house, in place of 304 Sandbanks Road, would be set substantially deeper into the plot than the alignment of the front elevation of the block of apartments allowed at appeal. The position of the 2 houses on the plot would be consistent with the adjoining buildings and recent consents, preserving the appearance of the streetscene. This is a significant change to the design of the scheme that would overcome concerns raised by the Inspector in dismissing the 5 house scheme, where the proximity to the road and the dominant projecting first floor were referenced as failing to respect the character of the area. The Inspector felt that the appeal scheme included too much hard surface to the front garden. This scheme also includes extensive hard surfacing to its Sandbanks Road frontage but, unlike the appeal scheme plots, the size of the proposed plots is sufficient to allow the incorporation of additional landscaping without compromising space for manoeuvring on site. This could be secured by condition. Whilst the houses are significantly larger than the existing chalet bungalows, their overall size reflects the size of the already approved schemes around the site, most notably at 3 Dorset Lake Avenue (immediately adjoining to the north). They would therefore better relate to No.304a Sandbanks Road than the scheme already allowed on appeal. The gaps between the proposed houses and to the neighbours would be consistent with the prevailing pattern and size of gaps along the road. The overall depth of the houses is shallower than the previous proposal and the roof form is a more traditional and uniform shape and the ridges are not as high. This contributes to preserving the rhythm and scale of the streetscene.

40

The relationship between the siting of the Sandbanks Road houses and Dorset Lake Avenue houses; the arrangement of windows and balconies are all very similar to the refused scheme. This was not considered harmful to the amenities of the respective occupiers and was also similar to the layout of the scheme allowed on appeal. Furthermore this would not give rise to a loss of privacy to the adjoining properties. Due to its orientation and layout, the proposed houses would not give rise to overshadowing, either of each other or of neighbouring homes, such as would be detrimental to their amenity. Nor would there be any overbearing or loss of outlook. The scheme proposes new trees on the Sandbanks Road streetscene that would enhance the landscape quality of the road and site. Sufficient parking is provided to meet the needs of the development, on site manoeuvring would preserve highway safety along Sandbanks Road and the low classification and volumes of traffic along Dorset Lake Avenue minimise the potential for conflict as a result of vehicles manoeuvring across the road. Being a new build scheme it would be readily possible to deliver an energy efficient and sustainable development, which would include sustainable drainage. A condition could be used to ensure the scheme achieves level 3 of the Code for Sustainable homes and that new hard surfaces are permeable. The site is not in a flood zone nor likely to contribute to surface water storm flooding. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September 2012. In accordance with CIL

Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council’s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole’s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development’s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £2,878.00 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £17,268.00 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. This application currently falls into CIL Zone A which at present has a CIL chargeable rate of £150 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The chargeable residential floorspace for this development will be calculated against this rate and indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender

41

Price Index. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as practicable after the day on which a planning permission first permits development.

Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter

for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attach to those

considerations

The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of

obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh

any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event, or the scheme should be

refused in any event.

CONCLUSION The revised design has overcome the concerns regarding the previous scheme, the scheme assembles sufficient land to preserve the residential character of the area and proposes a design that would sit comfortably in and preserve the appearance of the respective streetscenes. Furthermore it would satisfy the concerns of the Inspector in dismissing the appeal against the 5 house scheme. The application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND PAPERS None RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted With CIL Contribution

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. PL01 (Plans Listing) 3. GN050 (Matching Materials) 4. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony) 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, the flat roof areas indicated as 'Access for maintenance only', shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area without the grant of further planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the design and appearance of the houses and to protect the amenity and privacy of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with Policies PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009 and DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (2012). 5. GN080 (Screening to Balcony)

42

6. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s)) Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the windows indicated 'OG' in the houses on the approved plans 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 DPD 2012. 7. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3) 8. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 9. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 10. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) (no less than 6 trees) 11. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development) 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-enactment thereof, the front boundary treatment, to the roads, shall be implemented as indicated on the approved plans and thereafter maintained and retained as such and shall not be altered without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In order to ensure appropriate visibility at the accesses to the plots and the appearance of the site and in accordance with Policies PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009 and DM07 of the Site Specific and Development Management Policies DPD 2012. 12. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted) 13. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN13 (Kerb Crossing to be Lowered) 4. IN12 (Kerb Crossing to be Raised)

43

ITEM NO 06 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01375/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 8 Grasmere Road, Poole, BH13 7RH

PROPOSALS Variation of Condition 12 of planning permission

APP/14/00236/F to increase finished floor level of ground floor.

REGISTERED 28 October, 2014 APPLICANT Northshore Homes Ltd AGENT Anders Roberts & Assoc WARD Canford Cliffs

CASE OFFICER Darryl Howells

INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee by Councillor Mrs. Haines in response to residents' concerns. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Variation of Condition 12 (drawing numbers) of planning permission APP/14/00236/F to increase finished floor level of ground floor. MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to whether the proposed amendments to the approved scheme (APP/14/00236/F) would be acceptable in terms of:

Impact on the setting and character of the site and surrounding area

Impact on residential amenities

Parking and access

Flood risk

CIL compliance SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located in the centre of the Sandbanks peninsula and has a dual aspect, fronting onto Grasmere Road to the south and backing onto Panorama Road to the north. The area is residential, dominated by detached houses, many of which have been replaced with larger properties in contemporary architecture resulting in a mixed appearance. The former dwelling on site has been demolished and the site cleared in preparation for construction work to commence, to implement either an extant approved scheme or these revised proposals should planning permission be granted.

44

The site is within the flood zone around the edge of the harbour and developments as built or approved on nearby sites have raised finished floor levels (FFL) in order to protect from flooding. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Land at 32 Brownsea Road 2012: Planning permission APP/12/01359/F was granted to demolish the house and erect two 4 bed houses. Land at 36 Brownsea Road 2011: Planning permission APP/10/01483/F was granted to erect two detached houses with parking (revised scheme). 8 Grasmere Road 2014: Planning permission APP/14/00236/F to demolish existing building and erect two 3-bed detached houses was Granted. 10 Grasmere Road 2014: Planning permission APP/13/01539/F to demolish the existing dwelling and erect two detached dwellings was Granted. 2014: An application APP/14/00124/F to demolish the existing dwelling and erect two detached dwellings (Revised Scheme) was Refused. The reasons for refusal were:

The proposed houses by reason of their length, in combination with the height of their wall plates relative to the adjoining properties, the lack of articulation of the side elevations, and their flat roof design, would cause the buildings to appear at odds with the mainly pitched roof architecture in the vicinity and overly prominent, harmful to both the Grasmere Road and Panorama Road street scenes from where the proposed buildings would be easily seen. The proposals would therefore be harmful to the setting of the site and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009.

The significant rearward projection of house P1 beyond the rear wall of no.8 Grasmere Road by approx 6.5m would result in a large section of the side wall on the east elevation of P1, facing onto the rear garden amenities of no.8. Given its significant projection beyond the rear wall of no.8, and its height and proximity to the east boundary, it is considered that the proposed house P1 would appear dominant and overbearing to the rear garden amenities of no.8, materially harmful to the amenities of residents of that property. In addition the rear ground floor balcony/ terracing on the north elevation, by reason of their height relative to the side boundaries, would allow materially harmful overlooking to the rear garden amenities of the adjoining properties, nos. 8 and 12 Grasmere Road, which given the orientation of the stairs on the outer facing sides of the balcony/terracing, cannot be overcome with obscure glazed screens. The proposals therefore fail to respect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties, contrary to Policy DM1 of the Poole

45

Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted 2012. 2014: Planning permission APP/14/00805/F to vary Condition 2 of Permission 13/01539/F to substitute the approved plans with new plans to amend the external design including raising roof by 200mm and install flood resilient construction to ground floor in place of flood gate was Granted. 2014: Planning permission APP/14/01244/F to vary Condition 2 of permission APP/14/00805/F to replace the approved drawing for various external alterations; increase of internal headroom; and to alter finished floor levels of ground, first and second floors was approved. 27 Grasmere Road 2012: An appeal against the refusal of planning application APP/11/00469/F to demolish the house and erect 2no. dwelling houses was allowed. In allowing the appeal, the impact of the proposal on the appearance of the street scene, in terms of their height, the Inspector said:

“In the vicinity, there are many old-established bungalows, some of which have been modernised and extended, but these are interspersed with two-storey houses and a growing number of houses of contemporary design which feature prominent gables, extensive glazing and accommodation in the roof space”. “The heights, depths and combined widths of the proposed houses would be somewhat greater than those of the existing house but their size and contemporary design would not be out of keeping with other recent developments nearby, notably at 19/19a Grasmere Road and, almost opposite the site, at 26 Grasmere Road/36 Brownsea Road.” “Such developments are already closely juxtaposed with more traditionally designed houses and bungalows and so the proposal’s height, design, scale and massing would be acceptable”.

2014: Planning permission APP/13/01425/F was granted to vary condition No. 2 of planning permission APP/11/00469/F to drawing no's 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007 and 008. The revised designs altered the appearance of the dwellings to those of a contemporary design. PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE Verbal discussions with the applicant, to advise that the proposed changes in levels were material and needed a revised planning application. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Adjoining properties and relevant consultees have been notified. CONSULTATIONS None received.

46

REPRESENTATIONS Natural England: No objection to the proposed development. The Sandbanks Association and 4 Households strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds that:

the scheme represents a substantial variation in terms of building height relative to neighbouring properties and floor levels;

the resultant height of the buildings will be over 1 metre higher than the extant approved houses;

the proposal may lead to further flood risk issues;

working times of construction personnel and deliveries should be restricted;

the proposal will materially harm neighbouring amenities and cause invasive overlooking from parts of the houses and balconies;

there will be loss of natural sunlight to neighbouring dwellings and their rear gardens; and

there are implications for the Party Wall Act. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012) LOCAL CONTEXT The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS15 Access and Movement PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS26 Delivering Locally Distinctive, Self-Reliant Places PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS31 Sustainable Energy - General PCS32 Sustainable Homes PCS34 Flood Risk Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012) DM1 Design DM4 Coastal Zone DM7 Accessibility and Safety DM8 Demand Management

47

PLANNING JUDGEMENT The principle of redevelopment of this site by reason of the erection of 2 x 3 storey houses has already been established with the extant approved scheme. The proposed houses are similar in appearance to the extant approved houses, however their finished floor levels have been increased and their resultant overall height increased above the extant planning permission by 0.9m. on plot 1 and 0.6m. on plot 2. Additional changes to the proposed houses include fenestration alterations to the facades; increases to the eaves level; increasing headroom at second floor of each houses; reducing the roof pitch on plot 1 from 14° to 10°; and reducing the roof pitches on plot 2 from 29° to 25°. Character and appearance The increases to the floor levels in each case will have a impact on the relative heights of each storey compared to neighbouring buildings, however overall the height of the roofs will be consistent with that approved at no.10 Grasmere Road and the emerging character of the wider setting. The proposed FFL of the first floor of each house will be 0.48m. higher than the dwelling on plot 1 of no.10 Grasmere Road. This will appear slightly at odds, when viewed from the Grasmere Road street scene. The horizontal misalignment of the finished floor levels continue between the dwellings at second floor level, where again the difference will be 0.41m. However at their highest points of the roofs, each house will be marginally lower than the approved scheme at no.10 Grasmere Road. The relationship of the proposed dwelling on plot 2 and no.6 Grasmere Road is again materially altered. No.6 is not a single dwelling, but a building that has been sub-divided into 3 self contained residential units. Being older housing, the FFL internally do not take account of flood risk, so the external facades have window cills lower than those of associated with newer properties. According to the street scene drawing (8366/303 Revision A) the first floor window cill height of no.6 will be 0.7m. lower that of the cill height of the second floor windows on the house on plot 2. The eaves height of the proposed house again will be significantly higher by 1.2m. above those on the older building. The ridge level being 0.63m. higher. It is noted, however, that the alignment of No 6 to Grasmere Road is angled away from the Road, whereas the frontage to Plot 2 would be square to the road. Furthermore Plot 2 would be 11.5m from the road, whereas No 6 varied from 6m, at 4.8 eaves height, and to 16m at 7.8m eaves. Whilst higher than No 6 given the position relative to the road the cumulative impact would not be so harmful so as to justify refusal, particularly given the wider character. As the sites around are developed, and the street scene evolves taking account of the flood risk, then these houses will contribute to that newer character and appearance of dwellings in Grasmere Road. The resultant effect of the higher FFL at both first and second floor levels appear to create buildings that are prominent with their neighbouring dwellings but given their setting these would not appear dominant and harmful. The changes to the articulation of the buildings would ensure there was significant difference in appearance between the buildings, so that they would complement the individuality and uniqueness of buildings which generally exists in the area. The appearance of the houses would therefore remain acceptable having regard to the local distinctiveness of this area, according with Policies PCS05 and PCS23 of

48

the Core Strategy. Privacy and amenity The proposals to increase the floor levels would result in full floor to ceiling height windows and the ground floor terrace at the rear of each proposed dwelling being at a higher level. The increased height of the windows would not result in significant increases in overlooking beyond that already accepted in an urban environment by the extant planning permission APP/14/00236/F, as the first and second floor windows on the front and rear elevations would still only allow more distant or oblique views to the adjoining rear gardens, albeit higher. To the side of no.6 Grasmere Road, there is a high level ground floor window on the side of the building (use of the room is unknown) and a first floor kitchen / dining window which would not be readily visible from the dwelling on plot 2. To the rear of the house on plot 2, there will be a ground floor raised terrace and stairwell that will provide access from the kitchens into the rear garden of each house. The depth of the terrace being 1.6m. deep by 6.1m. wide. Either side of the proposed terraces, there will be 1.8m. privacy screens to preserve existing neighbouring amenities and at the request of the applicants to preserve amenities of the new properties, the subject of this application. It is accepted that there will be oblique views from these terraces over existing and proposed boundary fencing, but these relationships have already been accepted by the Local Planning Authority and is not uncommon in an urban environment. On the extant approved scheme, condition no.4 required obscure glazed screens at least 1.8 metres in height to be installed "down the side of the stairs adjacent to the boundary with No.10 on plot 1 and the boundary with No.6 on plot 2", in the interests of privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties. Whilst re-imposing the condition could be undertaken, an assessment of the likely overlooking to be caused is minimal given that the stairwells are centrally located within the site, in excess of 6m. away from the common boundary with neighbouring sites, and in any event some overlooking is not uncommon or unacceptable from some areas of terrace in any event. As previously required, the proposed side windows should be obscure glazed by condition in order to prevent direct and intrusive overlooking to the adjoining properties. Privacy of the adjoining properties would therefore be maintained and therefore accords with Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD. Parking and Access Both of the proposed properties require two parking spaces to be consistent with Council Parking Policy. The two parking spaces and integral garage proposed for each house would therefore provide adequate parking provision. There is a dropped kerb access to the rear of Plot 2 onto Panorama Road. This should be reinstating as footway. This is to remove the potential for vehicles using this access onto Panorama Road as an alternative access into Plot 2 and compromising the safe free flow along Panorama Road which is a classified District Distributor Road. The rear gated pedestrian accesses are acceptable to both plots. There are therefore no highway objections to the proposal subject to conditions requiring

49

that the only vehicular access should be from Grasmere Road, as shown on the submitted plans, and that the parking provision be required. Sustainability Issues The Energy and Resources statement submitted with the application summarises the ways in which the proposal would comply with PCS 35. The proposed dwellings would be constructed to achieve the relevant level of the Code for Sustainable Homes, as required by the relevant policies in the Core Strategy. This will be ensured by the imposition of a relevant condition. Flooding Issues The original application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which incorrectly indicates that the FFL of the habitable areas would be at or above 4.20m. AOD. That Flood Risk Assessment also details measures of flood resistance and resilience including the use of water resistant materials (concrete, brick etc.) at lower levels together with appropriately protected high level electrical infrastructure. These measures should be secured by conditions. The main entrance into the building would be via a door and internal staircase which are below flood levels, but higher than that previously approved. The finished floor levels of the habitable rooms on the first floor would provide safe refuge during the limited periods of high water inundation and emergency egress from the building could still be achieved via the external stair case from the first floor rear balcony in the event of flooding. Within both proposed houses, on the ground floor to the rear of the garages, it is proposed that there will be a games room with en-suite, similar to that previously approved, but at a higher level. Access to the garden, will be via a set of patio doors and a separate door leading from the en-suite. Advice received by the Environment Agency in August 2014 now identifies that a room such as a cinema / games rooms (or similar), are rooms that would be used as part of the habitable accommodation, and they could be easily be adapted or used as bedrooms without any conversion would be deemed 'habitable'. The Agency continued to advise that swimming pools, plant room, garages, showers and utility rooms are ancillary to the main living area, and gyms would need to be design for that use only (i.e. a manner that would not promote easy conversation to a bedroom). As such, allowing games rooms on the ground floor would place occupiers below the required finished floor level considered to be safe, and therefore would endanger their lives. It should be noted, however, that this application seeks solely to vary condition 12, the list of approved plans, and that therefore the applicants are entitled to rely upon the earlier extant permission which includes similar rooms at a similar level and at that time no objection was raised. Whilst revised advice needs to be taken into account with any new application the fall back position is equally of relevance. In this instance, therefore, whilst noting the EAs concerns it is considered that these could not be substantiated on this site given the valid fall back position.

50

Control of Construction Activity A representation has sought that a condition is imposed restricting construction activity timings to protect the amenities of neighbouring and nearby occupiers. Imposing such a condition is unusual, would be inconsistent with all other permissions in the area, and could not be justified. Where the activities result in a statutory nuisance then the Council's Environment and Consumer Protections Services may investigate or act under the noise nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September 2012. In accordance with CIL Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council’s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole’s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development’s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive (net increase in dwellings £1439 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £8634 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. This application currently falls into CIL Zone A which at present has a CIL chargeable rate of £150 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The chargeable residential floorspace for this development will be calculated against this rate and indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as practicable after the day on which a planning permission first permits development.

Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter

for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attach to those

considerations

The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of

obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh

any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event, or the scheme should be

refused in any event.

CONCLUSION It is therefore considered that the changes to the approved scheme do not render it to be

51

unacceptable in terms of its impact upon the character of the area or the privacy and amenities of the adjoining properties and therefore accords with the Core Strategy and the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD. RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted With CIL Contribution

1. AA01 (Non standard Condition) This permission is granted for the erection of 2No 3-bed detached houses, without compliance with condition 12 previously imposed on planning permission APP/14/00236/F to replace the approved drawing as listed below, 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 revised conditions: Site, Block & Location Plan (Drawing number 8366/300 received 24th October 2014) Plot 1 - Plans & Elevations (Drawing number 8366/301 received 24th October 2014) Plot 2 - Plans & Elevations (Drawing number 8366/302 received 24th October 2014) Street scene (Drawing number 8366/300 Revision A received 1st December 2014) Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 4. GN170 (Screening to Balcony - General) Obscure glazed screens of a form sufficient to prevent external views of at least 1.8 metres in height shall be erected along both sides of the balconies on the rear of both houses as shown on drawing numbers 8366/301 & 8366/302. The screens shall be erected prior to the commencement of use of the balconies, 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). 10. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The finished floor levels of the buildings hereby approved shall accord with the levels shown on drawing numbers 8366/301 & 8366/302 received 24th October 2014 and the development hereby approved shall be built, strictly in accordance with the measures set out in the approved Flood Risk Assessment. Furthermore the lower ground floor games room shall not at any time be converted or used as habitable accommodation without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority Reason - In order to minimise the risk of harm from flooding and in accordance with the provisions of Policy PCS35 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009

52

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval)

53

ITEM NO 07 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01444/F APPLICATION TYPE Householder SITE ADDRESS 16 Western Avenue, Poole, BH13 7AN

PROPOSALS Erect Single Storey Garden Room (Retrospective) REGISTERED 12 November, 2014 APPLICANT ESA Studio AGENT Tigers Eye Architecture WARD Canford Cliffs

CONSERVATION AREA Branksome Park

CASE OFFICER Monika Kwiatkowska

INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr Mrs Haines because of neighbours concerns about non-domestic use of the building. Recommendation for Grant with Conditions THE PROPOSAL Erect Single Storey Garden Room (Retrospective) MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to

Impact on the streetscene and to the Branksome Park Conservation Area

Impact on the neighbouring amenity

Impact on protected trees SITE DESCRIPTION No 16 Western Avenue is a detached house located on the west side of Western Avenue, south of its junction with Bury Road. The site is within the Branksome Park Conservation Area and is covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The site is separated from adjacent homes by a timber fence and mature vegetation and has metal railings to the front boundary RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 2004 - Planning Permission granted to demolish existing dwelling and outbuildings and erect a detached house with integral garage to be accessed from Western Avenue

54

(APP/04/32981/007/F) 2005 - Planning Permission granted to construct an outdoor swimming pool with changing room / boiler room (APP/05/32981/010/F) PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS Head of ECPS: Any comments received will be reported. REPRESENTATIONS 2 letters of objection have been received: The Branksome Park, Canford Cliffs & District Residents Association and the occupier of No 18 Western Avenue have raised the following concerns:

erection of the structure without planning permission and arboricultural survey

the nature of the structure and its possible commercial use

possible damage to trees caused by the erection of the garden room PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012) LOCAL CONTEXT The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) PCS23 Local Distinctiveness Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012) DM1 Design DM2 Heritage Assets

55

Branksome Park Conservation Area - Character Appraisal and Management Plan SPD (Adopted 2006) PLANNING JUDGEMENT This application seeks retrospective planning permission to erect a garden room in the rear garden for use by the occupier. Impact on the Branksome Park Conservation Area: No 16 Western Avenue is located centrally within the Branksome Park Conservation Area. The houses on Western Avenue occupy large plots well screened by mature landscaping and trees. The garden room is a round single-storey structure with a flat roof; no windows; and surrounded by a raised platform which is sheltered by the projecting roof. It is constructed on concrete pad footings and is located towards the north-eastern corner of the site where it is substantially screened from public view by mature shrubs and trees. The curved architecture of the garden room compliments and reflects the contemporary architectural styling and materials of the house. The garden room is intended to be used incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, having been designed and installed specifically as a personal football training facility for the use of the residents. As a 'prototype' of its kind, it has nevertheless already been used to publicise the product and this has raised concerns about its intended use. Whilst the use of early examples of innovative structures for publicity or marketing purposes is not unusual, the use of the building by persons not resident at the house could nevertheless give rise to concerns about the impact of this use on the character of the Conservation Area. Therefore, whilst it is not usual to secure the ancillary use of domestic facilities such as games rooms or swimming pools by condition, the particular nature and history of the garden room makes it expedient to do so in this case. Adverts currently displayed on the garden room are not part of this application and will be required to be the subject of a separate application if retained. Impact on the neighbouring amenity: The proposed structure is approximately 33m. from the nearest house so will not harm the light; outlook or privacy of any neighbour. Given the intended use of the garden room for personal football training there is the potential for noise disturbance from a ball repeatedly being kicked against the interior wall. The views of the Head of Environmental and Consumer protection have been sought and, if appropriate, a condition could be attached requiring the garden room to be insulated to reduce noise transmissions to ensure that its use will have no material impact on the amenities of any neighbour. Impact on protected trees: The Senior Arboricultural Officer considers that the proposed development has been constructed without harm to the roots of nearby protected trees.

56

CONCLUSION The proposal generally accords with the adopted planning policies and subject to conditions, is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND PAPERS None RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted with Conditions subject to the following:

Conditions 1. PL01 (Plans Listing) 2. RC060 (Limitation on Use) The garden room hereby permitted shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such by the occupiers of 16 Western Avenue. Reason - In order to preserve the residential character of Branksome Park Conservation Area and the amenities of the neighbouring properties; and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (adopted 2012). Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)

57

ITEM NO 08 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01278/F APPLICATION TYPE Householder SITE ADDRESS 27 Charborough Road, Broadstone, BH18 8NE

PROPOSALS Erect detached double garage REGISTERED 2 October, 2014 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Helliker AGENT Bradbury Bichard WARD Broadstone

CONSERVATION AREA Ridgeway and Broadstone Park

CASE OFFICER Julie Shearing

INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr Brooke because of neighbour concerns about mass and bulk and the need for an open and transparent decision Recommendation for Grant with Conditions THE PROPOSAL Erect detached double garage MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to

the affect on the streetscene and character of the Conservation Area

the impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is a detached dwellinghouse set back from and at a higher level than the road. The area is a mix of dwellings of different styles and designs and the application site is identified as a positive building in the Broadstone Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan. . RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 1999: A two-storey pitched roof side extension and single-storey rear extension to form garage and study with two bedrooms above was approved (99/05138/006)

58

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE Pre application advice was sought in August 2014 in respect of a substantially larger building on the site of the double garage now proposed. The following advice was given:

The Arboricultural Officer had concerns about the extent of the encroaches into the Root Protection Area of the adjacent tree.

It was unclear how the first floor of the proposed building would be used as no floor plan has been provided.

The mass and bulk of the proposal was considered overbearing to the neighbouring property at No 25 Charborough Road, given the change in levels and the proximity to No 25.

The proposed inclusion of a 'counselling room' for clients would be acceptable as working from home on the basis of the proposed 2 or 3 clients per day over 3 days. Any increase beyond this may require a further planning permission.

There was no objection to a smaller structure and something the size of the double garage was suggested. This would also have less of an impact on the adjacent tree. The first floor element should be removed to reduce the impact on No 25 and the tree. A flat roof was suggested. The building could be utilised partly as a garage, and partly as a counselling room.

A significant reduction in the size and mass of the proposal would therefore be required, and an assurance that trees on site would be protected. The proposal would be considered acceptable if reduced to the size of a double garage, with a flat roof, subject to an assessment of its impact on the adjacent trees.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS None. REPRESENTATIONS Two letters have been received. One letter supports the proposals as it will provide additional off road parking. The other letter states the following concerns: it will have a serious effect on their privacy due to it being located immediately behind

their rear boundary wall and extending over the entire width of their property;

it is completely uncharacteristic of Charborough Road and if allowed within the Conservation Area it would set an undesirable precedent;

will be overbearing to their property;

the coming and going of clients cars will create an additional audible impact on their property;

the proposals is in the wrong place and should be site elsewhere;

could create a residential property due to the bathroom proposed; Any further representations received will be reported to the committee.

59

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012) LOCAL CONTEXT The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) PCS23 Local Distinctiveness Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012) Development Management Policies: DM1 Design DM2 Heritage Assets Broadstone Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan PLANNING JUDGEMENT The scheme has been amended since the pre application, and as a further result of negotiations the consulting room has been removed from the application. The proposal is for a detached double garage, with a pitched roof. The roofspace above the garage is to be used as storage. The floor layout plan does not indicate any direct access to this area by means of a stairwell. The garage has a small feature window which will overlook the application site. This may give rise to some oblique views to No 25, but these are not considered harmful. Furthermore the roofspace is unlikely to be frequently occupied as it is for storage. The proposal has been moved away from the boundary with No 25, and whilst there is a change in levels across this boundary up to No 27, there is sufficient screening to obscure part of the garage. As the proposal is set off the boundary, and has a pitched roof which slopes away from the boundary with No 25, the proposals would not materially harm the light or outlook of No 25 or of any other adjacent home. It will partly be visible from the rear garden of Nos 25 and 23, but this in itself would not be materially harmful. There is no objection in respect of the impact of the proposals on trees subject to an amended Arboricultural Method Statement. This can be secured by condition. The proposal will be glimpsed in the streetscene, due to its elevated position. The materials proposed will need to complement the streetscene and character of the Conservation Area and this can be secured by condition. The proposals would have a minimal impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity, and

60

would preserve and enhance the Conservation Area. Trees on site will remain protected and will not be harmed during construction. CONCLUSION The proposal would enhance and preserve the Broadstone Conservation Area, and would not harm the privacy and amenities of adjacent residents. The trees on the site would be preserved and protected during construction. RECOMMENDATION Since the neighbour notification period will not expire until after Planning Committee it is therefore recommended that the application be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to Grant with conditions upon the expiry of the notification period, subject to no further representations being received which raise matters not already before the Committee for consideration, subject to the following:

Conditions 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. GN030 (Sample of Materials) 3. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required) 4. TR040 (Pre-commencement Meeting) 5. TR110 (Arboricultural Supervision) 6. PL01 (Plans Listing) Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)