ha2.boroughofpoole.comha2.boroughofpoole.com/akspoole/images/att22000.docx · Web view9.Members are advised that, in order to reduce the size of the agenda, where conditions are

Borough of Poole

Planning Committee

List of Planning Applications

11 September, 2014

1

BOROUGH OF POOLE

Planning Committee

DATE: 11 September 2014 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

2

TABLE OF CONTENTSPlanning Committee

11 September 2014 at 13.00

Not before 13:0001 Hamworthy Park Junior School, Ashmore

Crescent, Poole, BH15 4DGAPP/14/00789/F 4

02 60 and rear of 62 and 64 Merley Lane, Wimborne, BH21 1RY

APP/14/00657/F 11

03 Land rear of 22-28 Merley Gardens, Wimborne, BH21 1TB

APP/14/00709/F 20

04 289 Herbert Avenue, Poole, BH12 4HT APP/14/00735/P 29

Not before 14:0005 9 Harbour View Road, Poole, BH14 0PD APP/14/00908/F 3806 46 Springdale Avenue, Broadstone, BH18 9EU APP/14/00799/F 4707 Land Adjacent to 16 Barry Gardens,

Broadstone, BH18 9ENAPP/14/00693/F 52

08 23 Wallace Road, Broadstone, BH18 8NF APP/14/00755/F 59

Not before 15:0009 42 Heathfield Avenue, Poole, BH12 5DJ APP/14/00800/F 6310 3A Turks Lane, Poole, BH14 8EW APP/14/00826/F 68

3

ITEM NO 01APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00789/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS Hamworthy Park Junior School, Ashmore Crescent,

Poole, BH15 4DG

PROPOSALS Erect a two storey extension comprising of four classrooms and single storey extension to the existing staff room.

REGISTERED 1 July, 2014APPLICANT Children Young People and Learning, BoPAGENT Kendall Kingscott

WARD Hamworthy East

CASE OFFICER Claire Moir

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee as the applicant is the Borough of Poole and the proposals are not of a minor nature.

Recommendation for Grant with Conditions

THE PROPOSAL Erect a two storey extension comprising of four classrooms and single storey extension to the existing staff room. In order to accommodate the extension the existing timber framed external classroom and cycle stands are to be re-located.

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to

Whether the proposals respect the character and appearance of the existing site and surrounding area

Whether the proposals preserve neighbouring privacy and amenities Ensures adequate facilities for parking, promotes sustainable modes of transport and

preserves highway safety Delivers a successful school environment

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is located at the end of Ashmore Crescent, a cul-de-sac off Ashmore Avenue in Hamworthy and borders Blandford Road to the north and the railway to the south. To the east of the site is the Twin Sails School.

4

The site is occupied by Hamworthy Junior School a single storey, brick built flat roof building with its main entrance from Ashmore Crescent. The site also includes playing fields, a swimming pool to the north of the main school buildings and detached house associated with the school use.

The area surrounding the site is generally residential in character, predominately two storey houses.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2003 - Application ref: 02/13815/009/W was granted to construct new first school and nursery adjacent to existing middle school together with access and drop off area to be accessed from Blandford Road as amended by plans received 18.10.02.

2003 - Application ref: 03/13815/011/W to erect 2 prefabricated classrooms for a temporary period was granted.

2004 - Application ref: 04/13815/012/W was granted to erect single storey extensions to form new entrance and offices.

2014 - Application ref: 14/00301/F was granted for 3 x small extensions to main school building 31.5 sq. mtrs in total.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

None formally taken

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

The School held an open afternoon for invited residents to view their proposals prior to an application being submitted.

CONSULTATIONS

Sites notices displayed and neighbours notified. The consultation period expires 4/9/14 - any further comments to be reported to Committee

REPRESENTATIONS

Dorset Police - No objection

Network Rail - No further observations

Transportation Services - No objection subject to conditions

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5

National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012)

The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)

PCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS15 Access and MovementPCS33 Environmental Performance Of Commercial Buildings

Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012)

Development Management Policies:DM1 DesignDM7 Accessibility and Safety PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The proposals are to extend the existing school with a two storey extension to the west of the existing building to create four additional classrooms including internal alterations. The proposals also include a smaller single storey infill extension to the north of the main reception.

As part of the proposals alterations are also proposed to the tarmac and grassed areas to the west of the building, the existing timber framed external classroom is to be re-located and cycle parking to be located close to the western boundary of the site.

The proposals are to allow additional growth to the school which will increase over the next four years with a total of 120 additional pupils by 2018. This increase is as a result of an increasing demand on School places within the Borough and Hamworthy Park Junior School has been identified as increasing from 3 to 4 forms of entry.

The main bulk of the proposals is the two storey extension. This has a modern design with pitched roof, full length glazed windows and a unique pallet of materials including blackened timber cladding and coloured render. The proposals would not replicate the existing design and appearance of the school buildings and are clearly designed to be different. It is considered that although different, the existing buildings design is of its time and not of any particular architectural merit, as such these proposals give the opportunity to add to the character and appearance of the site and improve the sites appearance and architectural merit. It is considered that the proposals by virtue of their differing design add to the sites visual appeal and give a greater presence to the site from the surrounding area.

The proposals would result in a greater massing and presence on site than the existing single storey building by virtue of being two storeys, the character of the area is however of two storey dwellings and as such the proposals would respect the character and appearance of the siting and surrounding area.

6

The proposed infill extension would be single storey and in a similar design to the two storey proposals. This element of the proposals would have a limited impact on the character of the area and is considered acceptable.

The proposed single storey extension would by its very nature have a limited impact on neighbours adjoining the site and as such is considered acceptable.

The proposed two storey extension would be positioned on site facing towards the side boundary of 1 Ashmore Crescent which borders the site. The extension would be approximately 16.5 metres from the boundary with this neighbour and due to the existing hedge along this boundary shown to be retained, views towards the rear garden of this property would be restricted and not considered harmful to their privacy and amenities. Additionally the proposed extension would be at right angle to the rear elevation of the adjoining neighbour and as such no overlooking would occur.

The proposal will result in an additional 120 children attending the school, an increase of 33%.

The existing footway is narrow at the main school access point at Ashmore Avenue and in particular where the school crossing patrol (SCP) currently operates. At school drop off and pick up times there is heavy pedestrian and cyclist congestion along these footways, including school children, some of which travel unaccompanied. There are particular congestion points at the SCP location immediately at the Ashmore Crescent/Ashmore Avenue junction were parents/pupils wait to cross whilst others try and pass by on the narrow footway. Many drivers travelling along the main road do not reduce their speeds, despite this increased pedestrian activity. As such Transportation Services have significant concerns regarding pedestrian safety which is already considered an issue.

A scheme for mitigation is therefore required as part of these proposals in order mitigate the additional pressure and risk which the additional school capacity will put on an existing highway safety issue. Such a scheme could include measures such as a reduction in the speed limit on Ashmore Avenue to 20mph, a raised table junction, increased parking on site and the opening up of the access between Hamworthy Junior School and Twin Sails in order to use the existing drop off /pick up facilities at the Infants School. This would however need to be managed carefully as there is the potential for an increase of movements from the Infants School onto Ashmore Avenue.

There are limits on the types of scheme which can be accommodated due to Ashmore Avenue having large HGV/Static Caravan movement along it to Rockley Park.

The School Travel Plan (TP) survey results indicated 38% of pupils arriving by car. Given the relatively local catchment shown on maps in the TP I consider this is a relatively high percentage of car use. With an additional 120 pupils this percentage could equate to approximately an additional 46 cars being attracted to the school. There are very few on-street parking opportunities close to the school . The applicant has put forward the use of the nearby Hamworthy Park car park as a solution to additional parking, however this would appear to be already heavily used and does not open until 8:30 am, as such Transportation consider this as alternative option to be unsatisfactory.

Without additional parking areas being available the application needs to rely on

7

significantly encouraging sustainable transport to mitigate parking impacts.

The Travel Plan includes some targets/actions to encourage lower car use and there will be a slight increase in cycle parking (additional 5 stands = 10 cycle parking spaces). Given the lack of available parking in the area, potential parking safety issues and to meet sustainable aims, the application needs to go further in order to encourage sustainable transport modes, including more physical measures.

The Travel Plan survey response did highlight concerns regarding the condition of the footpath link between Tuckers Lane and Ashmore Avenue. Transportation surveys showed that this footpath had a high level of usage by school pupils/parents and is anticipated to increase with the additional pupils. In highway terms the main issues raised where overhanging shrubbery/trees and lack of lighting. This could be addressed by the applicant to encourage use of this walking route.

From observations the westbound bus stop on Blandford Road was well used by Junior school pupils/parents which ties in with the catchment map showing the majority of existing pupils located to the west of the school. This bus stop has only 1 shelter but waiting pupils currently extend well beyond this shelters reach, which could make this bus stop unattractive in winter months. An additional shelter would encourage bus usage by new pupils/parents.

The Travel Plan also showed that no pupils car share. This is an area which should be targeted by the Travel Plan organisers at the school given that the catchment shows parents living predominantly in the same westerly area.

It is considered therefore that whilst there are existing issues with regard to pedestrian safety in relation to the school that the additional pupils as part of this application will put additional demand on existing facilities and further increase risk to pedestrian safety. In order to address this issue conditions are attached to this approval which will encourage sustainable modes of Transport and seek to resolve Highway safety through a number of measures some or all of which will be agreed as part of a condition.

It is anticipated that the proposals through the measures outlined in the accompanying Energy study would meet the requirements of Policy PCS33 to provide 10% of predicted energy use through low or zero carbon technologies. A condition will be attached to secure this.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the proposals by virtue of their design, massing, siting and relationship to neighbours would result in a scheme which enhances the character and appearance of the area and preserves neighbouring privacy and amenities. The proposals would subject to compliance with a number of conditions requiring an improved Travel Plan, increased use of sustainable modes of transport and measures to enhance Highway/Pedestrian safety and reduce vehicle speeds be acceptable in Highway terms.

RECOMMENDATIONIt is therefore recommended that this application be Grant with Conditions subject to the

8

following:

Conditions

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))

2. AA01 (Non standard Condition)The materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall be as per the approved plans and application form, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason -To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development and that existing and in accordance with Policy PCS23A of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009).

3. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Prior to September 2016 a scheme to reduce vehicle speeds and congestion on Ashmore Avenue shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority and implemented in accordance with those details. The scheme shall include some or all of the following measures, a raised table junction at the Ashmore Avenue/Ashmore Crescent junction, advance warning road signage and road markings in connection with the school, a speed reduction scheme, increased permeability between the Hamworthy Park Junior School and the Twin Sails School and improvements to sustainable modes of transport which may include improvements to Tuckers Lane.

Reason-To ensure Highway and pedestrian safety and in accordance with Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and Policy DM7 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies adopted 2012.

4. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Prior to November 2015 a revised School Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and subsequently implemented in accordance with those agreed details. The Travel Plan shall include measures to mitigate the increased number of pupils and to encourage sustainable transport modes amongst staff, pupils and parents including, but not limited, measures to encourage car sharing, cycle use, public transport use and walking.

Reason-To ensure Highway and pedestrian safety and encourage Sustainable modes of Transport in accordance with Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and Policy DM7 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and

9

Development Management policies adopted 2012.

5. HW110 (Cycle Provision)Prior to the commencement of development, details of shelters to the proposed cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The details shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details prior to completion of the development and thereafter retained.

Reason -In order to secure the provisions of appropriate facilities for cyclists and in accordance with Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009), and DM7 and DM8 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management DPD Policies (April 2012).

6. PL01 (Plans Listing)The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Proposed elevations ref: 130714 L(0)12 received 23/06/2014Proposed Site Plan Ref: 130714 L(0)14 Rev A received 18/07/2014Location Plan Ref: 130714 L(0)01 received 23/06/2014Proposed Site Section Ref: 130714 L(0)15 received 23/06/2014

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

7. GN161 (BREEAM)

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;- offering a pre-application advice service, and- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the applicant was advised of issues after the initial site visit- in this case the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit amendments to the scheme which addressed issues that had been identified- the application was considered and approved without delay

10

ITEM NO 02APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00657/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS 60 and rear of 62 and 64 Merley Lane, Wimborne, BH21

1RY

PROPOSALS Erect 4no. dwellings, demolish existing.REGISTERED 28 May, 2014APPLICANT Willton Homes LtdAGENT Ken Parke Planning Consultants

WARD Merley & Bearwood

CASE OFFICER Clare Spiller

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Brown because

ofconcerns raised by local residents in regards to character of the area and highway safety.

Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution

THE PROPOSAL Erect 4no. dwellings, (3 No bungalows and 1 No 2 storey dwelling), demolish existing dwelling.

MAIN ISSUES


Impact on character and appearance of the area Impact on residential amenity Impact on important amenity trees Parking and highway safety Biodiversity CIL compliance

SITE DESCRIPTIONThe application site relates to land at no. 60 Merley Lane. There is an existing driveway into the site which runs parallel with the eastern boundary of the plot. To the rear is a long 'L' shaped garden (in excess of 75m) wrapping around the rear of the garden to no. 62. Garden land to the rear of 64 is included. The site is generally bounded by rear gardens. Properties on Merley Lane has extremely generous rear gardens. The application property

11

sits above road level as does the rear garden. There are a number of trees which include trees on and adjacent to the boundary of the application site.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYThere is a planning application (14/00709/F) on land adjacent to the east side of the site boundary for construction of five detached houses with associated parking, access and landscaping. Accessed from Merley Gardens, this is being considered elsewhere on this Plans List.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICENone sought.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONNone.

CONSULTATIONSHead of Transportation Services- No objection

Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection (Waste Authority)- Residents are expected to present the bins on the highway of Merley Gardens on appropriate collection days. The distance to the highway appears to exceed the recommended distance of 30 metres in BS5906.

REPRESENTATIONS

Speed survey and report flawed- time observed was at quietest time of the day (10 to 11am), a further survey should be done when schools are open and at peak time 8am to 9.15am etc.

Density and plot size not in character with the area Number of errors omissions, false assumptions and wrongly drawn conclusions in the

supporting documents inc. the design and access statement Could a fire engine attend a fire or problem to the proposed dwellings on plot 1, 2 or 3. This stretch of road has restricted visibility due to bend and high banks No footpath outside application site so pedestrians need to use the road- danger to

pedestrians Entrance to site opposite junction with Oakley Straight. Children often cross this top

end of the Oakley Straight unaided. Drives increase there speed to go through traffic calming on this stretch of road Inadequate parking provision The acoustic barrier shown should be constructed Noise and disturbance from cars slamming doors, engines starting with resultant

vehicle pollution within an confined area

If approved:- Effective traffic calming should be introduced include lower speed limit to 20mph;

restricting pinch points by kerbs or bollard's rather than white lines which are ineffective.

During construction:-Restrict size of delivery and other site vehicles to enable them to use the site access road; Forbid off loading and parking on Merely Lane;

Limit noise nuisance inc. radio; No on site burning; Ensure working hours are

12

reasonable


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT



PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS15 Access and MovementPCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS28 Dorset Heaths International DesignationsPCS29 Poole Harbour Spa and Ramsar SitePCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS33 Environmental Performance Of Commercial Buildings

Supplementary Planning Document

SPD1 Parking & Highway Layout in Development


Development Management Policies:DM1 DesignDM7 Accessibility and Safety

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The character of the area is residential with a mix of bungalows and two storey houses fronting Merley Lane The existing properties have long rear gardens. The proposal is for 3 bungalows and to demolish and rebuild the existing house on a similar footprint. The entrance to the site is opposite the road 'Oakley Straight'. The site rises from the road, up to the house and then levels out in the rear garden.

The replacement dwelling, to the site frontage, will be on a similar footprint to the existing but extends deeper into the plot similar to the neighbouring property at no. 58. With regards to scale and mass there is some variation of buildings along Merley Lane, as such given this variety it is considered that the proposed replacement will not cause

13

demonstrable harm to the character/appearance of the streetscene.

The proposal is a comprehensive development to provide 4 properties in total (a net increase of 3) and would create an identity in its own right. The separation distances involved and the fact that the bungalows are by there nature single storey will not be readily visible from the streetscene. There are very recent examples close to the application site where bungalows have been erected within a backland location accessed between no. 44 and 46 Merley Lane. The proposed severance will be in keeping with the evolving character of the area. It is considered that the plot severance will also make best use of land in a sustainable location being close to local services including a primary school and shops off Sopwith Crescent in accordance with PSC05.

AmenityThe proposed bungalows at the rear of the plot will not impact on the privacy of the occupants of dwellings that bound the site. There will be reasonable size gardens, 6m deep to serve the future occupants, however to ensure that adequate garden area is maintained, it would be reasonable to remove permitted development rights for extensions to the property by way of condition. The back to back distance to the nearest property ranges between 28m and 36m to Merley Gardens, whereas the distance to the properties fronting Merley Lane is 38m.

With regards to the replacement property the proposed side elevation windows at first floor level serving en suite and bathrooms are shown to be obscure glazed to protect privacy of the future occupants of the dwelling and to prevent loss of privacy to neighbours. A Juliet balcony is proposed at the rear serving bedroom 1 & 2. The neighbouring property at no. 58 has a Juliet balcony on the rear elevation at first floor level. There will be mutual overlooking into the rear garden area between no. 58 and the replacement dwelling.

The submitted plans annotate a 2m high acoustic fence abutting a long section of boundary with no. 62 Merley Lane. No details of this fence has been provided. However this can be secured by condition.

TreesNo protected trees are required to be felled to facilitate the development. An Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to support the application to ensure that the trees on neighbouring land will be safeguarded during and after construction. Whilst this demonstrates an acceptable building to tree relationship the pruning spec is not acceptable as the levels of pruning proposed are excessive. Therefore a revised AMS is required to be submitted which can be dealt with by condition.

Highway safetyThe level of parking provision is sufficient for the development with at least ten spaces being provided across the four dwellings in the form of car ports, garages and driveways. The car ports for Plot 3 and 4 are not large enough to be considered parking spaces if they were to be converted into garages. Therefore a condition should be attached prohibiting garage doors being installed on the front.

There is sufficient space within the site to turn, allowing vehicles to exit in a forward gear.The access to the site is directly opposite a junction and sits on the inside of a bend. A

14

site visit was undertaken by the Senior Transportation Officer to check visibility when entering the proposed driveway. Provided land within the visibility splays has no obstruction above 1m in height there would be sufficient visibility based on the submitted speed survey and the relatively low child pedestrian movements in the vicinity of the access.

As the dwellings could be family homes a condition to secure a lighting scheme along the access (bollard lighting would be satisfactory) to be agreed, implemented and maintained in good working order, should be attached.

A bin collection point adjacent to the highway is provided within 6m of the highway. Whilst the distance to the individual dwelling exceeds 30m this is not considered to be so unreasonable given the use of wheelie bins in this area.

Sustainability IssuesThe Energy and Resources statement issued with the application summarises the ways in which the proposal would comply with PCS35. The proposed dwellings would be constructed to achieve the relevant level for Sustainable Homes, as required by the relevant policies in the Core Strategy. This will be ensured by imposition of the relevant condition.

BiodiversityPhase 1 habitats survey has been submitted to support the application. The report concludes that no habitats of conservation concern were found on the site.

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 £5,756 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £34,536 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 481.94sqm x

15

£75/sqm equating to £36,145.50. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice.

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.

RECOMMENDATIONIt is therefore recommended that this application be Grant With CIL Contribution


2. GN030 (Sample of Materials)

3. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required)Notwithstanding the submitted arboricultural method statement, prior to the commencement of development a revised statement shall be prepared by an arboricultural consultant holding a nationally recognised arboricultural qualification providing comprehensive details of any pruning works to facilitate development. That statement, to be read in conjunction with the current statement dated 19 August 2014 shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of demolition/development. All works shall subsequently be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason -The proposed pruning spec in the AMS submitted to support the application was not acceptable. In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that the trees to be retained on-site/adjacent site will not be damaged during the construction works and to ensure that as far as possible the work is carried out in accordance with current best practice and in accordance with Policy DM1 (iii) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

4. GN020 (Screen Fencing/Walling)No development shall take place until details/a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment including acoustic fencing to be erected has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, maintained for a period of five years and thereafter retained.

16

Reason -In the interests of amenity and privacy and in accordance with Policy PCS5 (v) of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012)

5. LS050 (Hard Landscaping)

6. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted)

7. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings, plans and particulars showing bollard lighting of the access drive shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and maintained in good working order in perpetuity.

Reason -In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal and in accordance with Policy DM7 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

8. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays)

9. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning space and garaging/car ports and vehicle parking shown on the approved plan have been constructed, and these shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those purposes at all times.Reason -In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009), and DM7 and DM8 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

10. TR090 (No Pruning)For the avoidance of doubt this permission does not grant permission for any pruning works to the trees to be retained on the site, unless demonstrated necessary in accordance with condition 3 above, and which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Any such works, should be subject to a separate Tree Works Application following the completion of the development hereby approved.

Reason -In order to protect the existing trees which are to be retained on the site and which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order until the Local Planning Authority has had the opportunity to fully consider their future in relation to the details of the proposed development and in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Site Specific Development Management Policies (April 2012).

11. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3)

17

12. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential)

13. 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, no garage doors shall be inserted to the front of the car ports and no further extensions any of the dwellings/bungalows other than those authorised by this permission shall be erected without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - To ensure that adequate garden area is maintained to serve the future occupants of the development ,and to ensure adequate parking is provided to serve the development and in accordance with Policy PCS5, PCS23, and PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policy DM1, DM7 & DM8 of the Development Management Policies SPD (April 2012)

14. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the windows annotated 'obscure glazed' on the approved plan on the east and west elevation for the replacement dwelling 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).


Site Plan, Location Plan & Street Elevation 2671-P-10 received 28 May 2014Plot 1- Elevations and Floor Plans drwg no.s. 2671-P-13; 2671-P-14; 2671-P-12 received 28 May 2014Plot 2- Elevations and Floor Plans drwg no.s 2671-P-16; 2671-P-17; 2671-P-15 received 28 May 2014Plot 3- Elevations and Floor Plans drwg no.s 2671-P-19; 2671-P-20; 2671-P-18 received 28 May 2014Plot 4- Elevations and Floor Plans drwg no.s 2671-P-22; 2671-P-23; 2671-P-21 received 28 May 2014Car port Elevations and Floor Plan 2761-P-11 received 28 May 2014

Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement and plan drwg no. 33689-A received 19 August 2014 (Note- the pruning specification is not agreed refer to condition no. 3)

18


Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;- offering a pre-application advice service, and- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions.

Also:

- in this case the applicant was advised of issues after the initial site visit- in this case the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit amendments to the scheme which addressed issues that had been identified

2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval)

3. IN67 (No Pruning Works)For the avoidance of doubt this permission does not grant permission for any pruning works to the trees to be retained on the site and which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Any such works, should be subject to a separate Tree Works Application following the completion of the development hereby approved.

19

ITEM NO 03APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00709/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS Land rear of 22-28 Merley Gardens, Wimborne, BH21

1TB

PROPOSALS Construction of five detached houses with associated parking, access and landscaping. Accessed from Merley Gardens. (as amended by plans received 12.07.14 & 17.07.14)

REGISTERED 6 June, 2014APPLICANT Harry J Palmer Holdings LtdAGENT Tanner & Tilley Planning Ltd

WARD Merley & Bearwood

CASE OFFICER Clare Spiller

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Brown because

of concerns raised by local residents in regards to overlooking and highway access.


THE PROPOSAL Construction of five detached houses with associated parking, access and landscaping. Accessed from Merley Gardens.

MAIN ISSUES


Impact on character and appearance of the area Impact on residential amenity Impact on important amenity trees Parking and highway safety Biodiversity CIL compliance

SITE DESCRIPTIONThe site is soft landscaped located to the rear of Merley Gardens, a residential suburban street characterised by a mixture of single storey and two-storey detached dwellings of

20

20th century design. Landscape, green areas and trees also help to define the low/medium density character of this particular neighbourhood. The existing development is laid out in a dispersed irregular grain and the residential buildings have a good relationship to the street with large front gardens. Front boundaries are generally open with lawns, pockets of soft landscaping and trees. The open grain gives rise to large gaps and views of vegetation and glimpsed views of properties sat to the rear between individual houses

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYThere is a planning application (14/00657/F) on land adjacent to part of the west side of the site boundary to erect 4 dwellings and demolish existing. This is being considered elsewhere on the Plans List.

1999 an outline application (99/01646/008) to sever land and erect a bungalow with access from Merley Gardens was refused. The reasons for refusal was due to 1)inadequate eastern visibility splay onto Merley Gardens is likely to result in increased danger to other road users, contrary to Local Plan Policy H1 (iii); and 2) prejudicing future housing development.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE19/03/2011- Response provided for 5 dwellings and create new access.Comments:- Access width proposed too narrow Visibility splays required Underdevelopment of the site Engineering operations required for road and access? With the change in levels information is required to demonstrate that there will be no

overlooking to existing neighbouring properties

14/03/13- Response provided for two detached houses with associated parking and accessComments:- Width and expanse of the proposed access and driveway will present a very hard

entrance to the site, cause vehicle and pedestrian conflict and allow meaningful provision of soft landscaping. This will be at odds with the prevailing gaps and character of the existing street.

The scheme should be designed to allow a more comprehensive scheme at a later date in the adjoining parcel of the land.

Engineering operations required for road and access? With the change in levels information is required to demonstrate that there will be no

overlooking to existing neighbouring properties

COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONNone

CONSULTATIONSHead of Transportation Services- No objection.Since the 1999 application refusal there have been significant changes in both national and local guidance and policy on the required visibility at new residential accesses for

21

them to be judged as a safe access. Effectively on residential roads new accesses require less visibility now than they did in 1999. Previous guidance required visibility to be measured from 2.4m into the access whereas measuring to 2m is now acceptable for on roads such as Merley Gardens.

For the pre-application 10/00256 in 2010, again the old visibility measurement of 2.4m was applicable under guidance/policy. The pre-application Transportation analysis was carried out as a desk top assessment, with no site visit, as is the case for most pre—applications.

In July 2011 the Council adopted the Parking and Highway Layout in Development SPD which gave up to date guidance on required visibility at residential accesses. For this Merley Gardens development visibility measured 2m into the access would be applicable under this policy document.

2012 - The National Planning Policy Framework states that “severe harm” is the test as to whether an application should be refused on highway safety issues. The NPPF seeks local authorities to take a pro-development approach.

In 2013, the pre-app 13/0004 was again assessed as a desk top assessment, with no site visit. The possibility of requiring third party land for visibility and access width was mentioned in the pre-app response.

REPRESENTATIONSSite notice posted and neighbouring properties notified.

Representations received. Comments as follows:-

Loss of privacy to bungalows on Merley Gardens and no. 24 and 26 Merley Gardens Loss of light to no. 24 block out light to garden of no. 70 Merley Lane Merley Gardens used for 'overflow parking' Entrance to site inadequate Buildings would compromise the area's character Loss of privacy to properties in Merley Lane Population of newts in immediate area as result of boggy conditions. Also frogs, foxes

and green woodpeckers Application in 1999 refused for one house due to inadequate visibility, nothing has

changed Many accidents outside entrance to the site Bin store location nuisance for residents- smells The J Pittard plan shows the entrance to be wider than on site The finished floor level of buildings should be lower than ground level of properties in

Merley Lane Site is within an area prone to surface water flooding (refer to EA map) Development should not exacerbate surface water flooding Noise and disturbance from extra traffic and families Would be better suited to bungalows

22


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT



PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS15 Access and MovementPCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS28 Dorset Heaths International DesignationsPCS29 Poole Harbour Spa and Ramsar SitePCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS33 Environmental Performance Of Commercial Buildings

Supplementary Planning DocumentSPD1 Parking & Highway Layout in Development


Development Management Policies:DM1 DesignDM7 Accessibility and Safety

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The character of the area is residential with mainly two storey houses fronting Merley Lane and bungalows some with dormers in the roof on Merley Gardens and on adjoining roads. The proposal is for 5 dwellings, the first floor accommodation is largely contained in the roof. There are windows in the gable ends at first floor level with roof lights in the roof pitch.

The topography of the site slopes with the north west side of the site sited at the highest level. The lowest point of the site is on the east side. The rear garden of properties in Merley Gardens slope down to the application site. No. 22 to 28 (evens) Merley Gardens are sat at a higher level with views onto the application site.

The finished floor levels of the properties on plots 1 and 2 will be dug into the site. Plot 3, 4 and 5 will have a floor level similar to existing levels on the site. 2 parking spaces are

23

proposed to the front of each property with further on street visitor parking.

The proposal for dwelling-houses on this plot will create its own identity/character. Whilst glimpsed through the site entrance this view would not materially alter the overall streetscene and resultant character.

The ridge height of the proposed dwellings will be between 43.6m (plot 5) to 45.8m (plot 1) and be similar in height to the ridge heights of properties no. 22 (43.54m) to 28 (45.72m) Merley Gardens.

From Merely Gardens one is able to view the properties in Merley Lane through the gaps between the dwellings and over the roofs. The new properties will be visible approaching the site along Merley Gardens, and from properties in Merley Lane and Merley Gardens, however whilst not proposing bungalows which prevails in Merley Gardens no material harm to the character of the area can be demonstrated.

With regards to privacy concerns raised by a number of objectors, the properties in Merely Gardens have rear garden lengths of around 15m deep. Whilst the rear gardens of those properties and finished floor levels of no. 22 to 28 are at a higher level and drop down to the rear boundary fence with the application site there will be in excess of 28m between the rear of properties in Merley Gardens and the proposed properties, and 39m between the rear of the proposed properties and properties in Merley Lane. These distances are more than adequate in an urban environment to ensure that there will be no harmful overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. The Characterisation Study April 2010 identifies that the lower density areas of Poole, such as Merley Gardens, demonstrate the opportunity to provide for higher density development without harming the overall character.

To facilitate development an Ash tree and two Cherry trees (G3) all categorised as Category C (not a constraint to development) will be felled. Replants are proposed along the southern boundary of the site to provide screen planting and planting is proposed on the site, however species and size of trees have not been provided. This could adequately be dealt with by condition.

Highway safetyAssessing the visibility against the current standard, measuring 2m in to the access, visibility to the left and right is available. Due to the alignment of Merley Gardens on the approach to the access, drivers exiting and looking right can see approaching vehicles for a significant distance, well in excess of current visibility requirements. Again, when looking left on exiting, which is considered the less crucial visibility, drivers can see vehicles on the far side of the carriageway as they approach the site. This visibility is available without the need for the applicant to ensure adjacent land remains clear of obstruction.

For the access width the current amended plans show the access width within the site as 5m wide which will allow for two-way vehicle flow. The immediate access off Merley Gardens is 3.8m which will not allow for two-way vehicle flow but meets guidance for a shared pedestrian/vehicle route. An assessment has therefore been made on whether the vehicle movements from 5 houses would lead to such severe conflict at the single width access that the application should be refused on this issue. When considering these

24

movements, which could be spread out over the day and the slow speed of vehicles accessing the site the Transportation Officer considers that this will not result in severe highway safety issues that would warrant refusal of the application and that could be defended at planning appeal. The word “ severe” is important as the National Planning Policy Framework sets this as the level of harm that needs to be proven when refusing an application on highway safety issues.

Visitor parking can now be accommodated within the site with the road extended slightly at the end. The 5m width will also allow vehicles to park to the front of the parking bays of the properties they are visiting.

Conditions should be attached which include ensuring that the landscaping proposed within the verges either side of the new access road be no higher than 0.6m for a distance of 2m into the site, this would assist with providing pedestrian visibility at the access. As the dwellings could be family homes a condition to secure a lighting scheme along the access (bollard lighting would be satisfactory) to be agreed, implemented and maintained in good working order, should be attached.

Surface WaterThe site is in an area which is at risk of flooding from surface water run-off. This should be controlled as near to its source as possible with sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) to reduce the flood risk through the use of soakaways, infiltration trenches, permeable pavements, grassed swales, ponds etc. A condition requiring details of a surface water drainage scheme for the site should be attached.

Sustainability IssuesThe Energy and Resources statement issued with the application summarises the ways in which the proposal would comply with PCS35. The proposed dwellings would be constructed to achieve the relevant level for Sustainable Homes, as required by the relevant policies in the Core Strategy. This will be ensured by imposition of the relevant condition.

BiodiversityPhase 1 habitats survey is due to be submitted and officers will update committee members of its findings.


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

25

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, PCS36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD.


If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £7,195 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £43,170 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 705.06sqm x £75sqm equating to £52,879.50. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice.


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.




3. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required)

4. GN020 (Screen Fencing/Walling)

5. LS050 (Hard Landscaping)


7. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings, plans and particulars showing bollard lighting of the access drive shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and maintained in good working order in perpetuity.

Reason -In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the details of the proposal and in accordance with Policy DM7 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

26

8. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Any landscaping proposed within the verges either side of the new access road be no higher than 0.6 for a distance of 2m into the site, and maintained at no higher than 0.6m in perpetuity.

Reason -To assist with providing visibility splays and in accordance with Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and DM7 & DM8 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies adopted 2012.

9. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)

10. TR090 (No Pruning)


12. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential)


Location Plan drwg no. 13 received 03/06/14Proposed Layout drwg no. 14 received 06/08/14Proposed Layout drwg No. 05 received 11/07/14indicating ridge heightsPlot 1 drwg no. 07 received 03/06/14Plot 2 drwg no. 08 received 03/06/14Plot 3 drwg no. 09 received 03/06/14Plot 4 drwg no. 10 received 03/06/14Plot 5 drwg no. 11 received 03/06/14


14. AA01 (Non standard Condition)No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason-To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system. The failure to maintain surface water drainage schemes could result in increased flood risk to the development and elsewhere and in accordance with PCS34 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009.

27

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;- offering a pre-application advice service, and- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the applicant was advised of issues after the initial site visit- in this case the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit amendments to the scheme which addressed issues that had been identified


3. IN13 (Kerb Crossing to be Lowered)

4. IN67 (No Pruning Works)

28

ITEM NO 04APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00735/PAPPLICATION TYPE OutlineSITE ADDRESS 289 Herbert Avenue, Poole, BH12 4HT

PROPOSALS Outline planning application to demolish existing building at no.291, sever land of no.289 and erect 1 No 3 bed house and 4 No 3 bed houses with associated parking.

REGISTERED 10 June, 2014APPLICANT Kingsbridge Land LtdAGENT Anders Roberts & Assoc

WARD Alderney

CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee due to the request by Cllr Trent due to the representations of residents.


THE PROPOSAL Outline planning application to demolish existing building at no.291, sever land of no.289 and erect 1 No 3 bed house and 4 No 3 bed houses with associated parking.

MAIN ISSUESThe principal issues for consideration in this case relate to the impact on the character and appearance of the area both in terms of built form and amenity trees, amenities of existing and proposed residents and highway safety.

SITE DESCRIPTIONThe site is on the north east side of Herbert Avenue, it consists of the plot of No.291 and the rear portion of the garden of No.289 Herbert Avenue. No.291 is a small detached bungalow with detached garage at the side. No.289 is a chalet bungalow. The plots are long and extend at the rear to back onto part of Bourne Valley open space and the rear gardens of properties on Berkeley Avenue.

Adjacent to No.289 is the Alderney Manor Community Centre, at the junction of Berkeley Avenue and Herbert Avenue.

The character of the area is residential dominated by detached properties with a regular rhythm of plot widths and many with long rear gardens. The plots slope down to the rear, they are positioned in a dip along Herbert Avenue, with the road rising in both directions away from the site.

29

There are many trees at the rear of the site and on adjoining residential plots covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The Bourne Valley is designated as a SSSI due to the habitats and species it supports and whilst links to the Bourne Valley Heathland which at this point is not part of the Dorset Heathlands SSSI.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY2014. Planning Application ref:14/00049 sought outline consent for the demolition of No.289 Herbert Avenue and the erection of 6 houses - withdrawn

Land rear of 273 Herbert Avenue2012. (12/01257) - Erect 2 no. 3 bed detached houses served from existing drive - Approved

R/O 271 & 273 Herbert Avenue and R/O 2 & 4 Berkeley Avenue2014. (14/00162) - Erect two detached houses served from existing drive between 271 & 273 Herbert Avenue - Refused:Reason(s) for Refusal:-1 The scheme would, due to the siting and location of the site, the position and arrangement of the proposed houses and the failure to assemble sufficient land to accommodate a layout ofdevelopment that preserves the areas residential character, be out of character with the prevailing pattern and layout of development contrary to the provisions of PCS05 and PCS23 ofthe Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009.2 The proposals fail to demonstrate how the development of the site would have regard to the change in levels between it and adjoining land, including land to be incorporated within the development, it is therefore not possible to assess the impact on the amenities of neighbours and the impact on the setting for the public open space contrary to PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and DM01 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies 2012.

2014 (14/01027) Erect two detached houses served from existing drive (revised Scheme) - Current Application

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICEInformal regarding acceptability of changes to the scheme to overcome the concerns leading to the withdrawal of the previous application.


CONSULTATIONSThe Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection services has no objection to the waste collection arrangements but notes the houses at the rear of the site are more than 30m from the road, but welcomes the collection point at the front of the site.

The Head of Transportation Services has no objection accepting the level of parking and access arrangements to the site.

30

REPRESENTATIONSLetters of representation have been received from 9 addresses. 8 object to the increased pressure on existing sewer systems, the loss of privacy, harm to the amenity of the public open space, impact on habitats and species therein and the changing character of the 'Avenue'.

1 letter supports the application as making good use of land, providing additional housing without placing pressure on the Borough's green spaces to provide space for housing.

Any further representations to be reported to Committee


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXTNational 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 CONTEXTPlanning Obligation - Recreational Facilities SPG. Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on existing facilities.


Poole Core Strategy (2009)PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS15 Access and MovementPCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS28 Dorset Heaths International DesignationsPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS36 Joint WorkingPCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places

Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (2012)DM1 DesignDM7 Accessibility and SafetyDM8 Demand ManagementDM9 Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity

PLANNING JUDGEMENTThe scheme proposes to demolish the existing bungalow at No.291 Herbert Avenue, sever land from the rear of No.289 and erect 2 pairs of semi-detached houses at the rear and a detached house at the front of the site, a new access from Herbert Avenue would be formed.

The application is in Outline form, with matters of access, layout and scale under consideration at this time. Appearance and Landscape are Reserved Matters

31

The first consideration is the principle of this form of development. The NPPF seeks to safeguard residential gardens and encourages Planning Authorities to adopted policies that protect gardens from inappropriate development that harms the areas character. Policy PCS05 of the Core Strategy provides that protection, requiring residential development involving plot sub-division to assemble sufficient land to preserve the character and appearance of an area whilst safeguarding residential amenity.

By severing land from No.289, the application site is large enough to provide the 5 plots without harm to the overall character of the area, by forming plots of sufficient size and length to preserve the prevailing pattern of plot sizes. Furthermore it takes a more comprehensive approach to the development of the existing long rear gardens.

The house at the front of the site would preserve the appearance of the streetscene, and due to the change in levels down from Herbert Avenue, in to the rear gardens, the 4 houses at the rear would not be readily visible in the streetscene.

Due to the presence of the Community Centre, the position and lower ground levels of the proposed houses and the size of the plot and surrounding plots the proposed rear 4 houses would be unlikely to harm the amenities of the adjoining properties or the character of the adjacent open space, by way of overshadowing, overbearing or loss of outlook. In the absence of considering the appearance of the proposed houses, the exact arrangement of windows is not known, however the illustrative elevations demonstrate how overlooking could be avoided and privacy preserved with window position predominantly facing towards the front and rear.

The layout places the 4 houses at the rear close to the protected trees and requires the removal of a Silver Birch to facilitate development. Other tree losss are detailed for good arboritcultural reasons and not directly necessary to facilitate this development. The loss of the single Silver Birch tree alone would not be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and the main group of trees would remain dominant at the rear of the existing streetscene, along both Herbert Avenue and Berkeley Avenue. However due to the proximity of units 3,4, and 5 to retained trees at the rear some overshadowing would exist such that the amenity of the occupiers of those houses would be affected and this could lead to pressure for pruning or removal of those trees. It is considered, however, that the predominant impact would result from a retained single Pine tree, some 8m at it nearest point to the neighbouring dwelling, and given the proposal that include removal of the lowest lateral branches (crown lift) that this enables sufficient light to enter the immediate garden area and to the property such that the impact would not be so detrimental throughout the entire day to render the amenity space unusable or the scheme unacceptable. The length of the plots, at circa 28m, would allow views through the trees and as such the occupiers would have a sufficient garden to balance the impact of dominance.

Whilst Landscape is reserved the illustrative plans indicate sufficient landscape space for heavy standard trees to both the road frontage and to compliment the new parking area ensuring a significant enhancement of the existing amenity along Herbert Avenue.

Sufficient parking is provided to serve the needs of the development, on site turning and visibility along Herbert Avenue is sufficient to ensure highway safety is preserved. The

32

double width access drive and depth of the pavement/highway verge is such that adequate visibility is available to safeguard pedestrian safety, achieve sufficient visibility along Herbert Avenue and space for vehicles to enter and exit the site simultaneously.

Compared with the extent of vehicle movements along Herbert Avenue, noise generated by the cars accessing the site would not give rise to levels of noise and disturbance in such close proximity to the neighbouring residential properties to be detrimental to their amenity and certainly no closer than commonly occurs in residential areas.

The width of the drive allows it to be a shared surface for pedestrians and vehicles. Space is provided along the drive and around the parking spaces to provide some landscape and setting to keep manoeuvring vehicles away from the boundaries. Space is available for trees to be planted around the parking courtyard to enhance its appearance.

A bin collection point is proposed at the front of the site, adjacent to Herbert Avenue, meeting the requirements of the Waste Collection Authority. Although the distance between the front of the site and rear houses is circa 45m, in the event the residents choose to leave some bins adjacent to the road, rather than collect/present them each day, the identified position would not harm the appearance of the site or streetscene. Details of landscaping, Reserved, could in any event secure landscape to the bin collection point.

The applicant has commissioned an ecological survey of the site, due to its proximity to the Bourne Valley Local Nature Reserve. No protected habitats or species were present on site to sterilise its development potential. However construction of the development could give rise to accidental damage which would be covered by a Construction Management Plan. Some ecological enhancement could be incorporated in to the development, but could be covered by a condition and form part of any reserved matters application.

The application is supported by an Energy and Resource Statement indicating that the scheme would incorporate a variety of measures to deliver an energy efficient and sustainable development, including the provision of PV solar panels on the roofs. A condition could secure that these measures are achieved. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONSMitigation 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

33

SPD.


If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £5,756 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £34,536 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 301sqm x £75/sqm equating to £22,575. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice.


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.

CONCLUSIONThe scheme would preserve the residential character of the area, due to the size of the plot, the ground levels and the proposed layout the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties would be preserved and the character of the open space would be preserved. Sufficient paring and safe access is provided and the loss of one tree would not prejudice the appearance of the site or the treed backdrop, furthermore the size of the rear gardens of the semi-detached houses would offset the potential overbearing and overshadowing that the trees will cause at various times of the day.

The scheme is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND PAPERSNone


1. OL010 (Submission of Reserved Matters)No development shall take place until approval of the details of the external appearance and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason - This condition is required to be imposed by the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

34

2. OL080 (Submission of Reserved Matters (3 Years))

3. PL01 (Plans Listing)Pursuant of discharging conditions 1 and 2, the outline matters approved (access, layout and scale) shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Site, Block, location plans & Streetscene Ref:8376/200 received 10/06/14 Plans & Front Elevation Plot 1 Ref:8376/201 received 10/06/14 Plans & Front Elevation Plots 2-5 Ref:8376/202 received 10/06/14


4. GN020 (Screen Fencing/Walling)


6. AA01 (Non standard Condition)The bin collection point indicated on the approved plans, shall be laid out and designated for such purposes prior to the first occupation of any house and thereafter retained for such purposes. Furthermore, in accordance with condition 1 above, details of landscape to the bin collection point shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA and thereafter implemented prior to the completion of the development.

ReasonIn the interests of the efficient collection of refuse, the appearance of the site and highway safety at the access to the site and in accordance with PCS05 & PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, and DM07 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies 2012.

7. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Prior to the commencement of development details of a scheme of lighting along the access drive shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The approved scheme shall then be implemented and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority.

Reason:In the interests of the safety of users of the shared surface drive, the amenity of neighbours and in accordance with DM01 & DM07 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies 2012.

8. AA01 (Non standard Condition)The submission of any Reserved Matters application seeking approval of the 'Appearance' of the scheme shall include measures to deliver biodiversity enhancement as indicated in the Ecological survey dated December 2013. The measures shall then be implemented and retained.

Reason

35

In the interests of biodiversity enhancement and in accordance with the NPPF and DM09 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies 2012.

9. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Any reserved matters application submitted to secure details of the 'External Appearance of the scheme shall make provision for the incorporation of on site energy generation as indicated by the Energy and Resources statement dated 10/06/14. The details shall then be implemented and thereafter retained.

ReasonIn order to deliver an energy efficient and sustainable development and in accordance with PCS32 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009.

10. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition)

11. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt)Notwithstanding the submitted Arboricultural method and Impact assessment a Construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. That statement shall demonstrate how the construction of the development can be undertaken whilst ensuring the tree protection measures as detailed in the Method Statement remain in place. All works relating to the demolition/development with implications for trees shall be carried out as specified in the approved arboricultural method and construction method statement, and shall be supervised by an arboricultural consultant holding a nationally recognised arboricultural qualification.

Reason -To prevent trees on site from being damaged during construction works given the close proximity of the development to retained amenity trees and the changes in levels proposed adjacent to areas of tree protection and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February 2009 and Policy DM1 (iii) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

12. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted)No development shall take place until proposals for the landscaping of the shared access drive and parking courtyard have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include provision for landscape planting, retaining walls, other means of enclosure and any changes in levels.

Upon approval:a) the approved scheme shall be fully implemented with new planting carried out in the planting season October to March inclusive following occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner, or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority;b) all planting shall be carried out in accordance with British Standards,

36

including regard for plant storage and ground conditions at the time of planting;c) the scheme shall be properly maintained for a period of 5 years and any plants (including those retained as part of the scheme) which die, are removed or become damaged or diseased within this period shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and the same species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation; andd) the whole scheme shall be subsequently retained.

Reason -In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure that the approved landscaping scheme is carried out at the proper times and to ensure the establishment and maintenance of all trees and plants in accordance with Policy PCS23(A) of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policy DM1 (iii) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

Informative Notes


Also:- in this case the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and this was reflected in the proposals- in this case the application was acceptable as submitted and no modification or further assistance was required


3. IN13 (Kerb Crossing to be Lowered)

37

ITEM NO 05APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00908/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS 9 Harbour View Road, Poole, BH14 0PD

PROPOSALS Demolish existing house and erect 2no. detached dwellings (as amended by plan received 21/08/2014)..

REGISTERED 18 July, 2014APPLICANT Tickle Back Enterprises LtdAGENT Tigers Eye Architecture

WARD Parkstone

CASE OFFICER Caroline Palmer

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee as it has been red carded by Councillor Stribley due to the concerns of local residents.


THE PROPOSAL Demolish existing house and erect 2no. detached dwellings (as amended by plan received 21/08/2014).

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to:

The impact on the character of the area The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Highways issues. The impact on protected trees. Sustainability issues. CIL compliance

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site was originally occupied by a detached chalet bungalow set at a lower level than the road, this has now been demolished. The application site is set higher than the properties in Danecourt Road and Hatherden Avenue to the rear, which are down a slope.

The surrounding area is characterised by detached homes - of a mixture of sizes, styles and designs. All of the plots are of a fair size, although some are larger than others. All

38

houses in the immediate area are of scales which ensure that they sit comfortably within their respective sites.

There is a public footpath leading to Danecourt Road located to the south east of the site.


Reference: APP/14/00716/FDescription: Demolish existing house and erect 3 detached dwellings. Decision: WithdrawnDate: 14/07/2014

Reference: APP/14/00349/FDescription: Sever land and erect detached house on siteDecision: WithdrawnDate: 21/05/2014

Reference: 04/12073/003/FDescription: Demolish existing garage at side and erect a double garage at rear.Decision: Grant with ConditionsDate: 20/09/2004


Reference: PREA/14/00140Description: Demolish existing house and erect three detached dwellings.Decision: Pre-App Response Provided - unsupportive of the scheme to erect three houses on the site.Date: 30/07/2014


As agreed procedures.

CONSULTATIONS

The Head of Transportation Services - no objection subject to conditions.

Environmental and Consumer Protection Services (Waste Management) - no objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Ten letters received from local residents raising issues including:

The impact on the character of the area and the street scene. The impact on highway safety. The impact on the adjacent footpath. The scale, height and design of the proposed houses. The overdevelopment of the site. The impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties.

39

The possibility of subsidence due to unstable land. The impact on protected trees. Fire issues. Drainage issues.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT



PCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS35 Energy And Resources StatementsPCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping PlacesPCS24 Design and Access Statements


Development Management Policies:

DM1 DesignDM7 Accessibility and SafetyDM8 Demand ManagementDM9 Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The impact on the character of the area

The proposed dwellinghouses, whilst set back from the edge of the road, would be highly visible within the street scene. The houses would appear as three-storey in the street scene of Harbour View Road, but would be four-storeys at the rear as there would be a partial lower ground floor in both units, using the natural slope of the site. Whilst the proposed houses would be taller than the chalet bungalow that previously occupied the site by approximately 2.9 metres at the highest point, the submitted street scene plan illustrates that the roofs of the proposed houses would be at a lower level than the neighbouring property at No.11 Harbour View Road, due to the topography of the site. As a result, the proposed houses would not appear overly dominant within the street scene.

40

The flat roof design of the houses is out of character with the predominant character of Harbour View Road, however considered to be acceptable as there are other examples of properties with flat roofs in the area, including the neighbouring home at No.11. Furthermore, the two houses are of different designs and this articulation adds interest to the scheme. The houses would be narrower than some others in the vicinity, however given the mixture of housing types and designs in the area and as well as the range of plot sizes, this would preserve the character of the area.

The proposed subdivision of the plot would result in the creation of two smaller plots. However, the existing plot is larger than most other sites on this side of Harbour View Road, and the resultant plots would still be larger than some of the other plots in the area. The plots would therefore assemble sufficient land to accommodate a type, scale and density of development which preserves the character of the area. The amenity space provided by the scheme would be sufficient and acceptable given the size of the houses and the size of other gardens in the immediate area.

The proposal incorporates a landscaped area to the front of the site with hard standing behind this and to the front of the houses. This would soften the impact of the houses within the street scene whilst maintaining the spaciousness of the bend in the road in this location. A condition will be imposed for the submission of further details of the hard and soft landscaping on the site, to ensure that the landscaping scheme is effective and respects the character of the area.

For the reasons given above, the proposed scheme would succeed in creating a type, scale and density of development which preserves the areas residential character. The design of the proposed buildings would contribute positively to the street by virtue of their height, roof form, site coverage and spacing. The proposed houses would respect the setting and character of the site and the surrounding area by virtue of their function, siting, landscaping and amenity space as well as their scale, massing, height and design. As such, the proposals comply with the provisions of policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy.

The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties

Given the existing boundary treatment between the site and the neighbouring properties, as well as distances between the proposed houses and the nearest neighbours and the design of the proposed houses, it is unlikely that the scheme would give rise to any materially harmful loss of light, outlook or privacy to neighbouring properties.

At its closest point, the proposed house on plot one would be approximately 10 metres from the rear boundary of the site, with the proposed house on plot 2 being a minimum of approximately 10.5 metres from the rear boundary. The house at number 2 Hatherden Avenue is 10 metres from the rear boundary with No.9 Harbour View Road at its closest point. The rear of the property at No.31 Danecourt Road would be located approximately 20 metres from the boundary of the site at its closest point, and the property at No.33 Danecourt Road approximately 13 metres at its closest point. This degree of separation between the proposed houses and the properties to the rear of the site would therefore be a minimum of approximately 20 metres back-to-back. This distance is considered to be acceptable in an urban context and would not cause material harm tot he light or outlook

41

of the properties to the rear.

The application site is located at a higher level than the properties to the rear as the site slopes from front to back. There are no terraces or balconies proposed at any level higher than ground floor. The windows to the rear would serve bedrooms at first and second floor levels and given the distance from the properties to the rear and the use of the proposed rooms it is not considered that the proposals would be materially harmful to the privacy of neighbouring properties.

The windows on the side elevations at fist and second floor levels are either secondary or serve en suites and therefore could be reasonably obscure glazed by condition to protect the mutual privacy of the future occupiers of the proposed houses.

Given the design and location of the proposed houses and the orientation of the neighbouring properties either side, the proposals would cause no material harm to the light, outlook or privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of those homes.

Highways issues

Access to the 2 houses will be taken from the existing driveway to No. 9. There is a public footpath running along the boundary of No.9 linking to Danecourt Road. In order to access this footpath from Harbour View Road pedestrians have the choice of walking along three foot way routes to the front of the site. Due to the alignment of these three options, it is unlikely that residents would choose to walk along the middle foot way, the drive leading to the proposed house, and therefore this reduces the chances of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. It is noted that Plot 2 also has a separate pedestrian access as well as the shared driveway access.

Where drivers exit the private driveway they would be crossing the north-south pedestrian route, but the proposal indicates that the boundary wall along the southerly boundary of the site will be no higher than 0.6m in height and therefore there will be good driver visibility to see pedestrians. This is an improvement on the existing situation where there is a 2m high boundary feature. The frontage wall to the proposal would also only be 0.6m in height, again assisting with pedestrian visibility. The driveway crossing the footway is a very common occurrence within residential areas and vehicles exiting the driveway are unlikely to be travelling at high speed. Therefore the proposal would not lead to material highway safety conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

The proposal represents a net gain of one property and their associated vehicle movements. This increase in traffic from one unit does not represent a significant increase in traffic flows on Harbour View Road or on the shared driveway. Vehicles stopping and waiting to turn into driveways is not an uncommon occurrence within this residential area and it is not considered that the location of the bend in the road adds a significant increase in safety dangers to these turning movements. Following drivers would have the usual indications that a vehicle is turning ie. indicators, brake lights etc. Drivers using the shared access would be travelling at very slow speed with forward visibility available to see other users.

At least 2 parking spaces per unit are proposed and there is a shared driveway that will provide vehicle turning areas. These provisions are satisfactory for this proposal in this

42

location.

Conclusion:It is not considered that the proposal and resultant traffic flow increase from a net gain of 1 additional unit would cause severe highway safety issues and therefore refusal cannot be recommended on highway safety grounds.

The impact on protected trees

There are protected trees on the site. The Council's Senior Arboricultural Officer does not consider that the scheme would cause any harm to these trees. A condition will be imposed to ensure that the Arboricultural Method Statement submitted is implemented.

Sustainability issues

The submitted Energy and Resources Statement sets out how the proposal would attempt to comply with the provisions of Policies PCS32 and PCS35 of the Core Strategy. A condition will been imposed to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements of code level 3 of Code for Sustainable Homes.

Other issues

Drainage and fire escape issues will be dealt with through the building regulations process.

The comments relating to concerns relating to land instability and possible subsidence have been noted. However, there is no evidence that the site would not be capable of being developed and it would be the responsibility of whoever implements the planning consent to satisfy themselves that the house is built in such a way that would ensure that there would be no impact on neighbouring properties, or the house itself, as a result of the stability of the land.


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.

43


If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £1439 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £8634 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 423sqm x £75/sqm equating to £31,725. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice.


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

For the reasons given in the Planning Judgement section above, the proposals are considered to comply with the provisions of the relevant policies in the Core Strategy and the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD .






5. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt)


7. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Any boundary wall, fence, railings or planting along the easterly and southerly site boundary line between the existing pedestrian gate and the frontage building line of Plot 1 shall be reduced in height to no higher than 0.6m in height and maintained at no higher than 0.6m in height at all times.

Reason - In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and in accordance with

44

Policies DM1 and DM7 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies adopted 2012.

8. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the windows at first and second floor levels on the side elevations 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.


9. 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 area at first/second floor level of the houses hereby permitted 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).


Drawing number 1404_PA03_01 received 18/07/2014Drawing number 1404_PA03_02 revision A2 received 21/08/2014Drawing number 1404_PA03_03 received 18/07/2014Drawing number 1404_PA03_04 received 18/07/2014


Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

45

- offering a pre-application advice service, and- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions.

- in this case the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and this was reflected in the proposals- in this case the application was acceptable as submitted and no modification or further assistance was required


46

ITEM NO 06APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00799/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS 46 Springdale Avenue, Broadstone, BH18 9EU

PROPOSALS Replacement of existing garage with a new timber garage/summerhouse.

REGISTERED 26 June, 2014APPLICANT Mr N RobertsAGENT Dimension3

WARD Broadstone

CASE OFFICER Darryl Howells

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee by Councillor Brooke.


THE PROPOSAL Replacement of existing garage with a new timber garage/summerhouse.

MAIN ISSUES


the impact on the streetscene and character of the area; the affect on neighbouring privacy and amenity

SITE DESCRIPTION

The property is bungalow located in a corner plot location. Extensive work is being carried out at present as an earlier consent is implemented to raise the roof of the bungalow, and create first floor accommodation. The rear double garage has been demolished and there is a mobile home on site used by the owners whilst the work on the dwelling is in progress. There are several trees along the north boundary of the site which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The character of the area is bungalows of different styles and design and many have raised roofs to create first floor accommodation.


2014 - Rear kitchen extension, loft conversion raising ridge height and creating new roof

47

with new gables and dormers was approved.

2013 - Roof extension to form gables and dormers to provide first floor accommodation and rear extension to kitchen was approved.

2005 - Demolish existing and erect a 2-storey chalet dwelling and single detached garage was approved.

2005 - Outline Application to sever land and erect a single storey dwelling and single linked garage; demolish garage at rear to provide access to proposed dwelling from Lancaster Road was refused.

2005 - Outline Application to sever land at the rear and erect a single storey dwelling and garage; demolish garage at the rear of No.46 to provide access to proposed dwelling was refused due to the insufficient plot size, impact upon character and occupiers of the new dwelling ,and impact given the dwelling position near the TPOd trees.


None sought



CONSULTATIONS

None received.

REPRESENTATIONS

Seven letters of representation have been received. Two letters are not from local residents. Two letters have been received from the same address on two occasions. The main concerns are:-

the building itself is a large imposing structure and is far to big for a summer house; it is out of character with the neighbourhood and there are no other buildings of that

size and intended purpose in this area; the proposal is overdevelopment of the land; the proposal would completely change the character and alter the character of the

neighbourhood; there are covenants on the land; the proposal will have a devastating effect on trees on and adjacent to the site; the proposal would set a worrying precedent; loss of light to our upper garden and summerhouse; noise pollution from the building; the structure will significantly dominant the view and aspect of the surrounding

properties; the footprint of the proposal is on a par with dwelling houses in the neighbourhood. It

is bigger than a previously refused application for a single storey dwelling house and

48

garage; the impact on surface water drainage.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONSPOLICY AND GUIDANCE




PCS23 Local Distinctiveness



DM1 Design

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The proposal is to create a detached double garage with a summer house on ground floor with loft storage above. The proposal is close to the boundary with the rear of No 44. On site at present is a mobile home which is located in a similar position as the proposed garage/summer house. Approximately 2 metre high fencing separates the boundary with No 44. The height of the proposal is 4.8 metres to the ridge but 2.3 metres to the eaves. As such the wall of the garage structure will be hidden behind the boundary fence, and only the roof visible from neighbouring properties.

Whilst the entire roof will be clearly visible at the rear of the garden at No 44, given the distance of separation to the dwelling itself being 21 metres, it is unlikely that such a structure will be overbearing to the extent that planning permission should be refused. No windows are proposed to the side elevation facing towards No.44 so their privacy will be protected. In respect of No.2 Lancaster Drive, there will be rooflights so to protect neighbouring amenities these windows will be obscured glazed by condition.

It should be noted that a building of a similar height, 4m to ridge, could be constructed 2m off the boundary to No 44 as permitted development.

The proposed garage will be visible from the Lancaster Drive street scene however being positioned 14 metres back from the edge of the highway, the structure will not appear dominate or intrusive to the street scene.

There are protected trees on/close to the site. No details have been submitted to ensure that the proposal will not adversely affect the health of these trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order so in order to ensure no material harm to the nearby trees occur. The plans, however, do indicate the footprint of the building to be beyond the canopy of the tree and the drive surface to be gravel. It is therefore reasonable to

49

conclude no material harm would occur provided the construction of the building is controlled. An arboricultural method statement will be required by condition.

CONCLUSION

The proposal will not harm the street scene and nor the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposed garage is therefore considered to accord with adopted planning policies.

RECOMMENDATIONIt is therefore recommended that this application be Grant with Conditions subject to the following:

Conditions



Drawing number 112-04, site plan received 26 June 2014.Drawing number 124-01, block plan received 26 June 2014.Drawing number 124-02, floor layout plan and front and side elevation to garden received 26 June 2014.Drawing number 124-03, rear elevation to boundary and side elevation to boundary received 26 June 2014.



4. GN130 (Ancillary Accommodation/Annexes)The replacement garage with summerhouse hereby permitted shall be used solely for residential purposes ancillary to the parent dwelling known as 46 Springdale Avenue, Poole and shall not be used at any time as a separate unit of living accommodation, nor shall it be let separately to another party, either permanently, or for any seasonal or holiday period.

Reason -A separate unit of accommodation would be inappropriate on this site and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009).

5. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required)

6. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the roof light

50

windows shown on the front elevation (drawing number 124-02 received 26th June 2014) 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.


Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;- offering a pre-application advice service, and- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the application was acceptable as submitted and no modification or further assistance was required- the application was considered and approved without delay

51

ITEM NO 07APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00693/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS Land Adjacent to 16 Barry Gardens, Broadstone, BH18

9EN

PROPOSALS Erect an oak framed garage with cedar shingle roof, accessed via public highway at Cotton Close

REGISTERED 4 June, 2014APPLICANT Mr Holborn

WARD Broadstone

CASE OFFICER Caroline Palmer

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee due to a red card from Councillor Slade as aresult of residents concerns


THE PROPOSAL Erect an oak framed garage with cedar shingle roof, accessed via public highway at Cotton Close

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to:

The impact on the character of the area. The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The impact on protected trees. Highways issues.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is a piece of land which historically appears to have formed part of the rear garden area of 16 Barry Gardens. The plot has been severed and is currently unused. There is a public footpath to the north east of the site. The site is located in a residential area, at the end of the cul-de-sac of Cotton Close. The site is within 400m of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are protected trees on the site.


There is a large amount of history on the application site. The most relevant history is as

52

follows:

Reference: 02/08916/009/FDescription: Sever land and erect a 3-bed detached bungalow with attached double garage to be accessed from Cotton Close. (Revised Scheme) as amended by drawings dated 03.04.02.Decision: RefuseDate: 18/04/2002

Reference: 01/08916/008/FDescription: Sever land and erect a three bedroom detached bungalow with attached double garage to be accessed from Cotton CloseDecision: RefuseDate: 01/02/2002Appeal Decision Date: 23/07/2002Appeal Decision: DismissedReasons for refusal include:'The proposal, by virtue of the position and levels of the site relative to neighbouring properties, would have an adverse impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring residential properties and would result in a reciprocal adverse impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the new bungalow by means of overlooking from no.16 Barry Gardens. '

Land rear of 5-7 Pilgrims Way

Reference: APP/13/00372/FDescription: Erect 2no garages on site of previously demolished garages.Decision: Refuse

Reason for refusal:

The proposal would be tantamount to a separate planning unit with the use of the site and garages not being associated to any immediate residential property in the surrounding area. As a result, it is considered that proposal would result in increased noise and disturbance, failing preserve the amenities of the neighbouring residential occupants. Furthermore, the proposal would result in the loss of available parking immediately associated to residential properties in the surrounding area, contributing to increased pressure upon on-street parking and having an adverse effect upon the character and highway safety of the surroundings. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to DM1, DM7 and DM8 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies Adopted 2012, PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted 2009, and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document Parking and Highway Layout in Development Adopted 2011.

Date: 17/10/2013Appeal Decision Date: 03/04/2014Appeal Decision: Allowed


53

None.



CONSULTATIONS

The Head of Transportation Services - no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

Natural England - no objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

12 letters received from 10 local residents raising concerns including:

Security issues. Fire safety issues. Scale, massing, height and bulk of the building Impact on trees. Noise and disturbance. Impact on neighbouring amenities, including light and privacy. Impact on wildlife. Impact on the pattern of development and character of the area. The possibility of the proposed garage being converted into a dwelling. Impact on parking and highways. Drainage issues. Covenant issues.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT






54

DM1 DesignDM7 Accessibility and Safety PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The impact on the character of the area

The proposed garage would be set back into the site, and some of the vegetation to the front of the site would be retained. As such, whilst the garage would be seen from Cotton Close, it would not be dominant within the street scene. The design, scale and materials to be used for the proposed garage are considered to be acceptable given the size of the site and the location of the proposed garage within the site, as well as the function of the proposed building.

The proposed garage would not be associated with any residential dwelling in Barry Gardens or Cotton Close. However, in the Decision Notice for the recent appeal at land rear of 5-7 Pilgrims Way for the erection of two garages unrelated to the residential properties, similar to this application, the Inspector stated that:

'The appellant has set out that the garages would be used for domestic purposes...I consider that the use of the garages for domestic purposes would not result in any significant vehicle movements and given the proposed use are unlikely to generate any movements during unsociable hours...Furthermore, I am mindful that the use of the garages could be suitably secured for domestic purposes by a planning condition that would restrict its use for any other purpose, including class uses B1, B2 or B8. In conclusion, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that a domestic use of the appeal site for garages separate from the residential use of No 5 and No 7 would result in any significant noise or disturbance to the occupants of neighbouring properties, including their gardens. Therefore, the proposal complies with Policy DM1: Design of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies (2012). The policy seeks to protect residential amenity from nuisance, such as noise'.

The appeal decision need to be balanced against the earlier appeal decision on the current application site in which the Inspector considered the erection of a single dwelling on this site. In that decision, in 2002, the inspector concluded that 'the potential for friction between neighbours could arise from noise and activity from the proposed bungalow becoming an uncharacteristic feature of this quiet residential area'

The application to the rear of Nos 5 -7 Pilgrims Way was for 2 garages and the current application is for 4 garages and storage space. Whilst the increase in the number of garages is material it is nevertheless consistent to conclude given the more recent decision in Pilgrims Way that unless harm can be identified that it would not be unreasonable to site detached garaging unrelated to the parent dwelling on this site. The condition proposed by the Inspector for the Pilgrims Way appeal could reasonably be imposed on any consent given for the current application, to ensure that the use of the garage remains for domestic storage purposes and under no circumstances for any other use, including uses B1, B2 or B8. This would ensure that the proposed garage is used only for domestic use, which would include its use as storage for classic cars and any related maintenance.

55

As the current proposal is for a garage on this site, the use is considered to be acceptable. The site would not be granted consent for a dwelling as it falls within 400 metres of the SSSI.

The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties

The proposed building would be located to the rear of No.16 Barry Gardens and the side of the proposed building would be approximately 12 metres from the rear of the house at No.16. There is a change in levels between the proposed location for the garage and the dwelling at 16 Barry Gardens, which is set at a higher level. Given the fact that the neighbouring site is higher than the application site, and the degree of separation between the two buildings, as well as the height of the proposed garage, there would be no material harm to the light or outlook of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. Given the nature of the proposal, and the fact that there are no windows on the side elevation, there would be no material harm caused to the privacy of the occupiers of No.16 Barry Gardens.

Again, given the separation distance between the proposed garage and No. 6 Cotton Close (approximately 10 metres side to side) and the scale and design of the proposed garage, the proposal would cause no material harm to the light, privacy or outlook currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No.6 Cotton Close.

Whilst noting the earlier appeal decision in 2002 that development sought the creation of a self contained residential property and therefore the resultant activity of that property. The current proposal seek solely domestic garaging, a significantly lesser use than previously identified of concern.

The proposed garage would be a significant distance from all other properties in the area and would therefore cause no material harm to these.

The impact on protected trees

The application includes detailed arboricultural information, including an Arboricultural Method Statement. A condition would be imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the details contained within this document. As such, the proposal could be carried out without causing material harm to healthy protected trees on the site.

Highways issues

The proposals include the construction of a garage capable of storing five vehicles. The applicant states that the garage will be used for the storage of cars associated with recreational use; therefore the level of traffic generated is likely to be light.

The site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac with a footway on the opposite side. There is sufficient space within the site for vehicles to turn and exit in a forward gear. There are therefore no concerns regarding access to the site.

Other issues

56

The concerns relating to wildlife have been noted. However, Natural England have been consulted and have no objection to the proposal and no conditions have been suggested in relation to this.

Issues relating to drainage and fire safety would be dealt with as part of the building regulations process.

Issues relating to covenants are not a planning issue, but a civil matter.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given in the Planning Judgement section above, the proposal would comply with the provisions of the relevant policies in the Core Strategy and the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD.


Conditions



3. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt)

4. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (General permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactments thereof, the development herby permitted shall be used for domestic storage purposes only and for no other use, including any purpose in Class B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any subsequent re-enactment.

Reason - To protect the character of the area and the amenities of surrounding properties and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies adopted 2012.

5. AA01 (Non standard Condition)No goods, plant or material shall be deposited or stored in the open on the site.

Reason - To protect the character of the area and the amenities of surrounding

57

properties and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies adopted 2012.6. PL01 (Plans Listing)The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

1:500 block plans received 04/06/20141:100 proposed elevations received 02/06/20141:50 proposed floor plans received 02/06/2014


Informative Notes


- in this case the application was acceptable as submitted and no modification or further assistance was required

58

ITEM NO 08APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00755/FAPPLICATION TYPE HouseholderSITE ADDRESS 23 Wallace Road, Broadstone, BH18 8NF

PROPOSALS Extensions to dwelling & re-site access.REGISTERED 16 June, 2014APPLICANT Mr & Mrs B FramptonAGENT Mr B Mansfield

WARD Broadstone

CASE OFFICER Rachael Riach

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee due to the concerns of Cllr Brooke on behalf

ofthe neighbours regarding high levels of overlooking and loss of light.


THE PROPOSALExtensions to dwelling & re-site access.

MAIN ISSUESThe principal issues for consideration in this case relate to: Impact on neighbouring amenity. Impact on the character and appearance of the area.

SITE DESCRIPTIONThe site is on the south side of Wallace Road, a residential area, dominated by detached houses, bungalows, many of which have been extended to provide first floor accommodation. The site is occupied by a bungalow set on a large plot that slopes down from the road towards an area of land locked woodland to the rear. The gardens to properties on Benridge Close back on to the site.

The trees along and beyond the southern, rear, boundary are covered by a TPO as well as a tree beside the road at No.25 Wallace Road, overhanging the site.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYNone.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICENone.

59


CONSULTATIONSNone.

REPRESENTATIONS5 Letters of representation were received objecting to: The driveways effect on the protected tree, the garage extension protruding further than the building line [of No.21], the scale and size, the roof height and wall causing a loss of light, the unsympathetic nature of the proposals in terms of character, the rear bedroom window in the dormer causing overlooking. The presence of a 'concrete block' structure. Concern that the windows in the dormer will create overlooking into the garden and rooms of No.6 Benridge Close. That No.6 Benridge Close does not have three storeys as stated in a letter of correspondence from the agent.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXTNational Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012)

LOCAL CONTEXTThe following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy 2009PCS23 Local Distinctiveness

Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (2012)DM1 Design

PLANNING JUDGEMENTImpact on neighbouring amenityRelationship to No. 25 Wallace Road: As part of the proposals, a single storey extension with a pitched roof would project to around the halfway point of No.25 with a separation distance between the two buildings of 3m (2m to the boundary). Whilst some overshadowing could occur to the side windows of No.25 in the early to late evening it would not be considered materially harmful to the residents amenity, due to the existing orientation. It should, however, be noted that a similar height single storey extension could be constructed as Permitted Development.

Relationship to No. 21 Wallace Road: The proposed roof extension would result in an eaves height of 4.6m at the highest point next to the shared boundary. The increase in height would cause some overshadowing to the side windows of No.21 in the morning, however these windows are secondary windows, or windows serving non-habitable rooms such as the hallway as such it would not give rise to material harm to the amenity of the occupier. The increased massing is to the side of No.21 it is not considered to be overbearing as such a relationship is considered acceptable in a suburban environment.

60

Relationship to No. 6 Benridge Close: The dormer proposed to the rear of No.23 would give rise to new overlooking opportunities of No.6, the garden of which is not currently overlooked. However, the overlooking that the dormer would cause is not considered harmful since the distance to the boundary is a minimum of 9.5m and the angle of view would be relatively oblique. The distance would be 20m from the windows in the dormer to the windows of No.6. Furthermore, No.6 currently has more opportunity to overlook No.23's garden and in the event the dormer was constructed such mutual overlooking would not be, in a suburban environment, considered abnormal.

With regard to the proposed rear dormer, it is worth noting that such a dormer could be added to the existing bungalow as Permitted Development.

Relationship to No. 5 Benridge Close: Representations received from this neighbour raise concerns regarding a structure being built in the garden near to No.5. No such structure is included in the plans under consideration at this time. Structures in the garden of a residential property are commonly Permitted Development however if it exceeds the PD regulations a further planning application would be required. However due to its position and layout No.5 would be largely unaffected by the proposals under consideration.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area.The proposed increase in roof height, addition of a dormer and gable feature to the front would be readily absorbed by the streetscene, which is considered to have a mixed appearance, as a result of a variety of extensions and alterations undertaken to neighbouring and nearby properties.

Trees.

A tree assessment was carried out and found that none of the trees would be affected by the proposals. A separate report has been provided in relation to the construction of a retaining wall in the rear garden. Whilst that wall could be constructed as Permitted Development and does not form part of this application the assessment on tree demonstrates that the retaining wall will not harm protected trees provided the recommendations and conclusions are followed.

Highways.

A double garage would provide sufficient parking to meet the needs of the development. On site turning is indicated on the plans, however turning on Wallace Road would not prejudice highway safety due to the minor nature of Wallace Road.

CONCLUSIONThe proposals would not cause significant harm to the amenity of the neighbours and would preserve the residential character and appearance of the area.

RECOMMENDATION

61

It is therefore recommended that this application be Grant with Conditions subject to the following:

Conditions



'Extensions to dwelling' Dwg No. 1307/01 received 16/06/2014 'Extensions to dwelling' Dwg No. 1307/02 received 16/06/2014


Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;- offering a pre-application advice service, and- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the applicant was advised of issues after the initial site visit (required a tree report)- in this case the application was acceptable as submitted and no modification or further assistance was required- the application was considered and approved without delay

62

ITEM NO 09APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00800/FAPPLICATION TYPE HouseholderSITE ADDRESS 42 Heathfield Avenue, Poole, BH12 5DJ

PROPOSALS Loft Conversion including dormers.REGISTERED 26 June, 2014APPLICANT Mr A ThompsonAGENT Mr Harmsworth

WARD Alderney

CASE OFFICER Claire Moir

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Trent due to neighbours concerns.


THE PROPOSAL Loft Conversion including dormers.

MAIN ISSUES


Whether the proposals preserve the character and appearance of the streetscene Whether the proposals maintain residential privacy and amenities

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is located on the southern side of Heathfield Avenue close to its junction with Bryant Road.

The site is occupied by a detached bungalow in a pitched roof design.

To the rear of the site, the rear garden slopes down towards the rear boundary and properties in Rodney Close are set at a significantly lower ground level. To the west of the site properties on Bryant Road back onto the side of the application site and sit at a significantly lower level to the application site.

The area is generally characterised by residential properties, predominantly detached single and two storey properties with some single storey properties having had loft

63

conversions and rooms in the roof added.


13/01565/F - Retrospective application for alterations to the existing garage to form a store. - Granted 18/02/14


Ref: PREA/14/00099 - Proposals similar to that under this current planning application were put forward. Advice was that the principle of a loft conversion including gables and dormers was likely to be acceptable subject to further assessment on the likely impact on neighbouring privacy and amenities, which could not be assessed thoroughly at pre-application stage. Advice was given to reduce the size of the side dormer windows or omit them, particularly in the west elevation due to its elevated position to the neighbours in Bryant Road.


N/A

CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours notified

REPRESENTATIONS

2 letters of objection have been received from neighbours concerning the following:

Overlooking from the west and south elevations and in an elevated position to neighbours

Intrusive Harmful to the privacy and amenities of properties on Bryant Road Does not comply with Council Policies PCS23 and DM01 Overlooking of secluded garden and rear elevation of 39 Bryant Road Out of character with surrounding area by virtue of size, scale and bulk May set a precedent for No. 44 Heathfield Avenue


POLICY AND GUIDANCE





64


Development Management Policies:DM1 Design

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The proposals would result in the property being extended with gables to the front and rear and dormers inserted in both side elevations.

The character of the area is varied with a number of properties having had roof extensions or loft conversions including gabled features and dormers. As such the principle of the proposals is considered acceptable.

The proposals would not result in an increase in the ridge height of the property. The proposed dormers would be flat roofed and set within the roof form and as such would materially alter the shape of the roof form. Whilst altering the roof given other dormers that exist elsewhere the proposals would therefore respect the character and appearance of the streetscene.

To the rear of the site the gradient of the land slopes significantly downwards towards the rear of properties on Rodney Close. Whilst the proposal is in an elevated position to these properties and would result in accommodation being created within the roof, there is sufficient distance and screening between the site and properties to the rear so as not to cause harm to neighbouring privacy and amenities.

To the east of the application site is the neighbour at 40 Heathfield Avenue, the side of this property facing the application site is a blank elevation and as such the proposals would not result in harm to their privacy and amenities. To the rear the proposals would result in some overlooking from the first floor of this neighbours rear garden, however this would not be an uncommon relationship and views would be at an oblique angle. There would also be some oblique views towards the rear of properties on Bryant Road but again these will be at such an angle that it is not considered harmful.

To the west of the dwelling is 44 Heathfield Avenue (shown as 37 on the submitted plans) and properties on Bryant Road, nos 37 and 39. The proposals include a dormer window in the west side elevation of the roof which would be in an elevated position and visible from the rear of properties in Bryant Road. Following pre-application advice this dormer has been reduced in length in order to address previous concerns regarding its visual impact and potential for actual and perceived overlooking of neighbours, particularly 39 Bryant Road.

This proposed dormer would face the side elevation of 44 Heathfield Avenue with a smaller portion extending beyond the side boundary of 39 Bryant Road. The dormer would be at an angle to this neighbour and others on Bryant Road and when viewed from the rear garden of No. 39 would be at an oblique angle so as not to result in significant harm. The proposal would be more visible from the first floor in the rear elevation of this neighbour, however given that the dormer would be set within the existing roof form and

65

the windows can reasonably be conditioned to be obscure glazed in order to prevent overlooking (given the existence of other windows in the rear elevation serving the new rooms), it is considered that this would not cause sufficient harm to result in an unacceptable relationship.

The proposed extension to the roof form by virtue of the gable end would again be visible from this neighbour and others on Bryant Road however, it is considered that this would remain subservient to the existing roof form.

With respect to 44 Heathfield Avenue the proposed dormer would face a velux window in the side elevation of this neighbour and an obscure glazing condition would prevent any overlooking or harm to the amenities of this neighbour.

CONCLUSION

The proposals by virtue of their design and massing and character of the area would represent a development which would preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposals would by virtue of siting, relationship to neighbours and a condition to secure the obscure glazing of windows in the west elevation preserve neighbouring privacy and amenities.


Conditions


2. GN050 (Matching Materials)

3. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the dormer windows at first floor on the west elevation serving the bathroom and bedroom 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.



Drawing No. 1 Elevations and floor plans received 26/06/2014

66

Drawing No. 2 floor plan and section received 26/06/2014 Block Plan received 26/06/2014


Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;- offering a pre-application advice service, and- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and this was reflected in the proposals- the application was considered and approved without delay

67

ITEM NO 10APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00826/FAPPLICATION TYPE HouseholderSITE ADDRESS 3A Turks Lane, Poole, BH14 8EW

PROPOSALS Erect first floor balcony at front, new cladding, velux window and front boundary treatment.

REGISTERED 8 July, 2014APPLICANT Mr & Mrs HollisAGENT EMPERY + CO LTD

WARD Parkstone

CASE OFFICER Laura Archer

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee due to the proximity to a Councillors

property.


THE PROPOSAL Erect first floor balcony at front, new cladding, velux window and front boundary treatment.

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to:-

appearance, setting and character residential amenity

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is a modern two-storey detached dwelling house. The adjacent neighbouring properties are of similar age and style. The site fronts onto Whitecliff Park.


2007 - Demolish existing and erect 3 detached houses with integral garages (revised scheme) (07/28437/007/F). Granted with conditions 10/04/2007.


None.

68


Neighbour notification.

CONSULTATIONS

Natural England - no objection in respect of statutory nature conservation sites, refer to standing advice in respect of protected species.

REPRESENTATIONS

None received.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT





Development Management Policies:DM1 Design

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The proposed balcony to the frontage is similar to that which was previously approved under 07/28437/007/F. The glass balustrade would complement the modern style of the building. There is existing cladding to the front elevation of both neighbouring properties No.3 and No.3B and therefore the proposal of cladding to No.3A would be in keeping. The colour and finish could be agreed by condition.

The proposed alterations to the boundary treatment would incorporate new 400mm stainless steel railings along the existing front boundary wall and for a 1050mm high gate to the entrance. The design and appearance is such that it would complement the site whilst still retaining visibility to the frontage of the site and avoiding dominant boundary treatment.

In terms of protecting amenity, the proposed balcony, being to the front of the dwelling,

69

would face towards the public area including Turks Lane and Whitecliff Park. Some mutual overlooking would occur sideways between the balconies to No.3, No.3A and No.3B however, this relationship would not be considered materially harmful to the privacy of the occupants.

The proposed velux in the roof serving the stairwell given it's height relative to the stairs and landing in which it would serve, would not cause any overlooking to neighbouring properties.


Not applicable.


Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009) and DM1 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted 2012, and as such, is recommended for approval.


Conditions



drawing no.01 (location plan) received 02/07/14drawing no.03 (site plan) received 02/07/14drawing no.09 (new gate and railings) received 02/07/14drawing no.07 (proposed elevations 01) received 02/07/14drawing no.08 (proposed elevations 02) received 02/07/14drawing no.06 (proposed floor plans) received 02/07/14



Informative Notes

70

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;- offering a pre-application advice service, and- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions. - in this case the application was acceptable as submitted and no modification or further assistance was required

71