The proposal fails to assemble sufficient land to be able to accommodate a configuration of development and building to plot ratio that preserves the character of the by u1fxcA

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 48

									    Borough of Poole




    Planning Committee

List of Planning Applications




     16 August, 2012



              1
                               BOROUGH OF POOLE

                                Planning Committee

                          DATE: 16 August 2012 at 14.00


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 CONTENTS
                              Planning Committee
                             16 August 2012 at 14.00


Not before 14:00
01   Oakdale South Road Middle School, School      APP/12/00810/F   JL
     Lane, Poole, BH15 3JR
02   Land to the rear of 155 and 157 York Road,    APP/12/00652/F   CHP
     Broadstone, BH18 8ES
03   1A Lawrence Drive, Poole, BH13 7ER            APP/12/00867/F   CHP
04   Parkstone Grammar School, Sopers Lane,        APP/12/00585/F   JMLS
     Poole, BH17 7EP

Not before 15:00
05   Mary Tudor Cottage, 8 Market Street, Poole,   APP/12/00820/F   HB
     BH15 1NF
06   Mary Tudor Cottage, 8 Market Street, Poole,   APP/12/00821/L   HB
     BH15 1NF
07   32 Egmont Road, Poole, BH16 5BZ               APP/12/00892/F   EM
08   3 Lawrence Drive, Poole, BH13 7EN             APP/12/00738/F   DH




                                         3
ITEM NO                     01
APPLICATION NO.             APP/12/00810/F
APPLICATION TYPE            Full
SITE ADDRESS                Oakdale South Road Middle School, School Lane, Poole,
                            BH15 3JR

PROPOSALS                   Erection of 2 storey 6 classbase extension, site 2
                            modular classrooms, a storage building and associated
                            external works, internal alterations to existing school
                            building, relocation of shade structure, minor alterations
                            to existing car park.
REGISTERED                  18 June, 2012
APPLICANT                    Borough of Poole, Asset Management & Property
                                                  Services
AGENT                       NPS South East Ltd.

WARD                        Oakdale


CASE OFFICER                James Larson



INTRODUCTION
This application is brought before committee due to the application being submitted by the
Borough of Poole and not being of a minor nature.

Recommendation for Grant with Conditions

THE PROPOSAL

Erection of 2 storey 6 classbase extension, site 2 modular classrooms, a storage building
and associated external works, internal alterations to existing school building, relocation of
shade structure, minor alterations to existing car park.

MAIN ISSUES
 Whether the proposals will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
  area.
 Whether there will be any adverse impact on neighbouring privacy and amenities.
 Whether the proposal will provide adequate parking and what impact will the proposal
  have on the highway network.
 Whether the travel plan is acceptable.

SITE DESCRIPTION
The application relates to Oakdale South Road Middle School, which is surrounded by
residential properties to the north and south and by Allotments to the east and Poole
Town Football Club and pitch to the west.


                                              4
Currently the site is accessed by vehicles and pedestrians via School Lane to the north of
the site, from Palmer Road. The proposals include a new pedestrian entrance to the
southern boundary near Well Lane.

A large parking area providing 54 spaces plus 1 disabled space, and a one way loop
provides a good level of parking and both pick up and drop off facilities.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

08/07080/015/W - Site mobile classroom in school grounds. Temporary consent was
Granted 13/08/2008 until 13 August 2011.

12/00043/F - Erect a portable covered Arena Grand Stand relating to Poole Town Football
Club, which uses a portion of the site. Granted 27/92/2012.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

The proposal submitted has been the result of over 11 months negotiation and
engagement between various Council departments.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

   A public consultation exercise was held by the school on 29th May 2012, which
    allowed members of the public to view and comment on the proposals.
   In accordance with the agreed notification procedure, all adjoining properties have
    been notified and site notices displayed.

CONSULTATIONS

Transportation Services
 No objection subject to conditions requiring the proposed parking to be implemented; a
   scheme to mitigate the impact of traffic and parking on Palmer Road and Well Lane;
   and for the Travel Plan to be updated with measures to be agreed by the LPA

REPRESENTATIONS

Tatnum Farm Residents Association
 Consider consultation by LPA was not wide enough.
 The proposals will not provide enough parking
 The proposals will result in increased parking on the surrounding streets, for which
   new road markings will not adequately prevent illegal parking.
 The increased vehicle traffic generated by the proposals will cause increased 'Nitrogen
   Dioxide Pollution'.

In addition, one letter of objection was received from the owner/occupier of 42 Mellstock
Road. The planning concerns raised can be summarised as follows:
 The proposed extension will overlook and be overbearing to the adjoining properties.
 The proposals will cause loss of light to the adjoining properties.
 The location of the proposed play ground and extension will increase noise levels to

                                             5
  the detriment of the adjoining residents.
RSPB
 Fully support the recommended biodiversity enhancements in Dorset Ecology's Survey
  regarding the installation of bird boxes. A number of bird species rely on buildings for
  nesting opportunities have been included in the most recent list of Birds of
  Conservation Concern include swifts, house sparrows and starlings. Therefore a
  condition is suggested which covers submitting details of an appropriate type of box,
  location and quantity of bird boxes. The north elevation of the extension is advised as
  being a suitable location for the bird boxes.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)- Section 8

LOCAL CONTEXT
The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009)
PCS20              Accessible and Inclusive Places
PCS23              Local Distinctiveness
PCS26              Delivering Locally Distinctive, Self-reliant Places
PCS27              Safer Communities
PSC31              Sustainable Energy, General
PCS33              Environmental Performance of Commercial Buildings
PCS35              Energy and Resources Statement

Strategic Objective no. 5: To provide better life opportunities and improved quality of life
for all

Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted 2012)
DM1                   Design
DM7                   Accessibility and Safety
DM8                   Demand Management
DM9                   Green Infrastructure & Biodiversity

Parking and Highway Layout in Development SPD (Adopted 2011)

Other relevant documents
By Design
CABE: Picturing Good School Design
Engage: Good Practice Guide to Public Engagement
Manual for Streets & Manual for Streets 2

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

Background

                                               6
The current pupil numbers are 560 spread equally over year groups 4 to 7 (140 pupils per
year group), accommodating pupils aged between 8 and 11. However, due to changes to
the age of transfer and rises in school admissions, in 2013 the age at which children
transfer from primary to secondary schools will change from age 12 to11, and Oakdale
South Road Middle School will become a junior school accommodating children of ages 7
to 10 (year groups 3 to 6). Then in 2014 the number of admissions will increase to 180 per
year as 6 forms of entry are introduced. This means that by 2017 the total number of
pupils will be 720.

The proposals to increase the capacity of the school to meet the increased pupil numbers
will meet the Councils Strategic Objective no. 5 to provide better life opportunities and
improved quality of life for all, and to improve the prospects of young people in Poole
through better life chances, including access to good schools with key outcomes of higher
educational attainment and good quality education for all ages.

Design & Appearance
 The proposed extension by reason of its size and appearance will integrate well with
  the existing building and will not appear unduly prominent. Providing that the materials
  used for the extension match the existing building, the proposed extension will
  contribute positively to character of the site and surrounding area.
 The proposed modular classrooms, comprise the installation of a new modular building
  and the retention of the existing modular building, for which temporary consent that
  has recently expired. The buildings by virtue of their siting and height would have only
  minor impact outside the site, but given their temporary appearance would not be
  appropriately sited for permanent retention. It is understood that the modular buildings
  will provide temporary classrooms for the immediate projected increases in student
  numbers resulting from the changes to the age of transfer and admission numbers.
  Allowing temporary consent for 10 years, will enable the School to review the numbers
  and assess whether the modular units are no longer needed after that time, or if a
  permanent solution is required. The Council would reserve control to request the
  removal of the modular units after 10 years if that is deemed appropriate. It is therefore
  considered reasonable that the structures are granted temporary consent for 10 years.
 The proposed PE store building and the relocated shade structure by virtue of their
  size and appearance will not appear overly prominent and will compliment the existing
  buildings on the site.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity
 The proposed modular classrooms, PE store building and the relocated shade
   structure by reason of their size and separation from the adjoining residential
   properties, will not result in overlooking, material loss of daylight or cause overbearing.
 The proposed two storey extension by reason of its distance of separation form the
   adjoining residential properties to the north, will not give rise to material loss of
   daylight, or cause overbearing. The proposed upper windows on the north elevation of
   the extension, given their significant distance from the more important private garden
   amenities and windows of the houses to the north, being over 40m away, will not given
   rise to material overlooking.

Highways/Parking Issues
 The site has an existing 54 car parking spaces(plus 1 disabled space) with the main
   access road taken off Palmer Road. Surveys have been undertaken at school drop-off

                                              7
    and pick up times.
   These surveys reveal that like all schools within the Borough traffic peaks at school
    drop-off and pick up times. However, the existing layout of this school is far better than
    many others as the internal access road allows for drop-off and pick-up within the
    school curtilage. The proposal will further enhance the internal drop-off and pick-up
    arrangement by marking out a drop off zone that will accommodate approximately 25-
    30 cars. The existing 54 parking spaces on site will remain adequate for staff use. The
    main changes to the car park are to improve traffic flow at peak drop-off and pick up
    times.
   In addition the proposals include increased cycle parking from 24 hoops to 42 hoops
    (84 cycle spaces), and staff changing rooms with shower facilities are provided, which
    will encourage staff to cycle, run or walk to the school.
   Furthermore, the school has a well used bus service that is supported by the Council
    and which would benefit new pupils.
   Transportation Services therefore do not have any objections to the proposed parking
    arrangements, and recommend that they are secured by condition.
   Transportation Services have no objection to the scheme subject to submission and
    implementation of an improved and updated Travel Plan. This can also be secured by
    condition. The improvement of the school travel plan should encourage staff and pupils
    to use more sustainable modes of transport, reducing the number of vehicle trips
    associated with the school.
   A speed table to slow vehicles is proposed within the access road. As the proposal will
    increase pupil numbers and surveys show some existing congestion during the
    afternoon pick up times in surrounding roads, it is expected that some works would
    need to be carried out in the Palmer Road area to mitigate future impacts of traffic from
    the proposal. This has been discussed with the applicant and no specific proposals
    have been put forward, however, Transportation Services agree that mitigation
    measures could be secured by a 'Grampian' type condition.
   The proposal indicates a new footpath access to be formed off Well Lane. This path
    will have gates and operate during school times. Whilst the path will provide improved
    pedestrian access to the site, in order to alleviate concerns regarding potential parking
    issues that may arise in the Well Lane area it is recommended that a scheme for the
    introduction of parking restrictions should also be secured by the same 'Grampian' type
    condition.

Trees and Landscaping
 At present the site is well enclosed by hedging and trees which contribute significantly
   to the landscape amenity of the site and area. No significant amenity trees are
   proposed to be removed to facilitate the development and the proposals will not result
   in significant loss of planting. The proposals indicate that any lost planting will be
   replaced where appropriate. It is therefore considered that the landscape amenities of
   the site will be preserved.

Flood Risk
 The application was supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Whilst the site is
   outside of any significant flood risk area, the proposals would benefit from a scheme of
   Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems for the proposed hardstanding, to prevent
   surface flooding from water runoff from the proposed extension. The FRA recommends
   a suitable scheme, which should be secured by condition.


                                              8
Other issues
 The submitted energy statement suggests that the scheme will achieve BREEAM 'Very
   Good' and demonstrate 10% off-site renewables. It is recommended that this is
   required by condition to ensure compliance with Policy PCS33.
 The proposed new play area is unlikely to give rise to a significant increase in noise
   from that of the current play area, or result in noise that is incompatible within a
   residential area or at unsociable hours.
 The proposals are unlikely to generate significant increases in 'Nitrogen Dioxide
   Pollution', but non-the-less in securing an improved Travel Plan by condition, the
   School can seek to encourage greater use of non-car modes of travel.

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

     Conditions

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

     2. GN040 (Match Materials to the Existing Building)

     3. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
     Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the extension hereby approved shall not be
     occupied until the scheme for disposable water runoff/ flood mitigation
     measures recommended in the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Robson
     Liddle Limited (ref: MHW/12030/FRA) has been fully installed and finished.

     Reason:
     In the interests of delivering development which does not result in
     unacceptable levels of run-off and increased risk of floodingand in accordance
     with Policy PCS34 of the Poole Core Strategy and guidance given in Section
     10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
     contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

     4. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
     Prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby approved a scheme to
     assist with mitigating the impact of traffic of the development in the Palmer
     Road and Well Lane areas, including impact from vehicle parking, shall be
     agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and thereafter fully
     implemented in accordance with an agreed programme.

     Reason -
     In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies DM7 and
     DM8 of the Site Specific and Development Management DPD and PCS15 of
     the Poole Core Strategy Adopted 2009.

     5. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
     Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the extension hereby approved shall not be
     occupied until details of provision for nesting swifts, house sparrows and

                                             9
starlings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the RSPB. Upon written approval of the details,
the scheme shall be fully implemented as part of the development and
thereafter retained.

REASON-
In the interests of the preservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the
locality, in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations
and Development management DPD (Adopted April 2012).

6. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
Prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby approved an updated
Travel Plan including more appropriate measures to encourage staff and
pupils to travel to the school using non-car modes of transport shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and
thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the
agreed details.

Reason -
In the interests of highway safety and to encourage more sustainable modes of
transport and in accordance with policy DM 8 of the Site Specific and
Development Management DPD and PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy
Adopted 2009.

7. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)

8. GN161 (BREEAM)

9. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
The proposed modular classrooms hereby permitted shall be removed within
10 years of the date of this permission and any works for the reinstatement of
the land to its condition prior to the implementation of this permission shall be
carried out within one month of the date of expiry.

Reason -
Because the structures are not suitable for permanent retention and in
accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February
2009.

Informative Notes

1. IN62 (Summary of Reasons for Decision)
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England)
Order 2010

The proposed development has been tested against the following policies of
the Development Plan, including planning legislation and the National Planning
Policy Framework, and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, is not in
conflict with the following policies:


                                        10
a)The proposal will have a much improved school environment for both staff
and pupils which should help to improve the prospects of young people and
thereby meet objective 5 of the Poole Core Strategy.
b)The proposed scale and mass is acceptable on the site and will enhance the
appearance of the area- Policy PCS23 and DM1
c)The proposal will not adversely affect residential amenity- Policy DM1
d)The proposal will enhance the school function with well thought out
landscaped areas for both play, sport and external learning- Objective 5
e) Highway safety will be improved subject to condition and adequate parking
will be provided - Policies DM7, DM8 and PCS15 and Parking and Highway
Layout in Development SPD
f) Flood risk has been taken account of and conditions have been attached to
ensure adequate disposal of surface water - NPPF and PCS34
g) Nature Conservation interests and biodiversity, including protected species
have been considered - Policy PCS28, DM9, NPPF
h) A travel plan is to be secured by condition

2. IN60 (Subject to Travel Plan)
This permission is subject to the implementation of a Travel Plan in
accordance with the policies contained in the Poole Core Strategy 2009 / Site
Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).




                                      11
ITEM NO                    02
APPLICATION NO.            APP/12/00652/F
APPLICATION TYPE           Full
SITE ADDRESS               Land to the rear of 155 and 157 York Road, Broadstone,
                           BH18 8ES

PROPOSALS                  Construction of a bungalow with associated parking and
                           access, and construction of a replacement garage for
                           no.155 York Road.
REGISTERED                 23 May, 2012
APPLICANT                  Mr C White
AGENT                      Tanner & Tilley Planning Ltd

WARD                       Creekmoor


CASE OFFICER               Caroline Palmer



INTRODUCTION
This application is brought before committee due to a red card being submitted by
Councillor Burden.

Recommendation for Refuse

THE PROPOSAL

Construction of a bungalow with associated parking and access, and construction of a
replacement garage for no.155 York Road.

MAIN ISSUES

      Whether the proposals are in keeping with the character of the area.

      Whether the proposals are acceptable in relation to neighbouring amenity.

      Whether the proposals are acceptable in highways terms.

      Whether the proposals will cause material harm to protected trees.

      Whether the proposals provide the relevant contributions in relation to recreation,
       heathlands and transportation.

      The provision of housing.



                                             12
SITE DESCRIPTION



RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Reference: PREA/12/00033
Location: Land to the rear of 155 and 157 York Road, Poole BH18 8ES
Description: Demolition of existing garage. New bungalow with double garage, new
garage and parking for No. 155 York Road
Decision: Pre-App Response Provided
Date: 08/03/2012

Reference: APP/10/00777/F
Location: 155 York Road, Broadstone, BH18 8ES
Description: Erection of 2 bungalows with integrated garages and associated parking on
land to the rear of 155 & 157 York Road, Broadstone.
Decision: Refuse
Date: 23/08/2010
Appeal Decision Date: 12/07/2011
Appeal Decision: Dismissed

Reference: 9036/3
Location: 155 York Road
Description: Erect detached bungalow with a detached double garage (one half of which
would be to serve the existing dwelling) following demolition of existing garage. (In
accordance with amended plan 352-P1A). 155 York Road.
Decision: Refuse
Date: 21/03/1989

Reference: 12883/1
Location: 157 York Road
Description: Erect two storey extension to form kitchen and dining area with bedroom and
shower room over
Decision: Grant
Date: 12/08/1976

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

March 2012 - Advice given on a scheme for a single bungalow, very similar to that which
is now the subject of this application. It was advised that such an application would be
likely to be refused.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

As agreed procedures.

CONSULTATIONS


                                           13
The Head of Transportation Services - Objects to the proposals as they stand.

The Council's Arboricultural Officer - Objects to the proposals.

Natural England - No objection subject to the securing of the heathland mitigation
contribution.

REPRESENTATIONS

4 letters received from local residents raising concerns including: the impact on the
appearance and character of the area; the impact on trees; the impact on wildlife;
overdevelopment of the site leading to a cramped appearance; noise of construction;
overlooking and loss of privacy; the impact on drainage; and the fact that the plans are
inaccurate and fail to show the extensions of some of the surrounding properties.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

LOCAL CONTEXT

The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)

PCS05      Broad Locations for Residential Development
PCS23      Local Distinctiveness
PCS28      Dorset Heaths International Designations
PCS31      Sustainable Energy - General
PCS32      Sustainable Homes
PCS35      Energy and Resources Statements
PCS36      Joint Working
PCS37      The Role of the Developer Contributions in Shaping Places

Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted 2012)

DM1        Design
DM7        Accessibility and Safety
DM9        Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

It is considered that the current scheme remains very similar to the previous proposal in
terms of the impact on trees on the site. As such, the issues raised in the Appeal decision
relating to that application remain valid.

The Inspector for the previous Appeal referred to the advice in Tree Preservation Orders –
A Guide to the Law and Good Practice. The advice in this document is 'that a range of
factors need to be considered including the size and position of the trees as envisaged

                                              14
after the development, taking into account future growth. It says that the proximity of trees
to buildings is important because incoming occupiers of properties will want trees to be in
harmony with their surroundings without casting excessive shade or otherwise
unreasonably interfering with their prospects of reasonably enjoying their property; and
that, if trees cause unreasonable inconvenience, this will lead inevitably to requests to fell.
BS 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction – Recommendation points out that large
trees can cause apprehension to occupiers of nearby buildings, especially during windy
conditions, and that leaves may cause problems by blocking gullies and gutters'.

The Inspector for the previous Appeal went on to say that 'The juxtaposition of large trees
and buildings is typical throughout the surrounding area and future occupiers of the
bungalows would be aware of this. However, these trees often occur on the boundaries of
large gardens where there is ample unobstructed amenity space and where they do not
pose any actual or perceived threat to buildings. That would not be the case at the appeal
site, where the gardens of the bungalows would be dominated, particularly in the case of
bungalow B, by the nearby trees. This would not necessarily mean that the gardens could
not be used as amenity space but, together with the nuisance of litter from the trees and
perceived danger from falling branches, could impinge unreasonably on the living
conditions of the future occupiers of the bungalows. That would be likely to lead to
applications for work that could adversely affect their amenity value. Such proposals
might be difficult for the Council to resist where possible loss or damage is alleged....

....Some measures, such as gutter leaf guards, might help to reduce nuisance from the
trees. Nonetheless, there remains a reasonable concern that the proposed development
could, when occupied, have a harmful impact on trees that are the subject of a Tree
Preservation Order. That would conflict with the aim of Local Plan Policy NE28 and adds
weight to the conclusion that the proposal would harm the established character of the
locality'.

This current scheme will result in little usable amenity space being available for future
occupants of the proposed dwelling. This will result in future pressure being placed on
protected trees in order to contain the spread and proximity of lateral branches, reduce
leaf and debris fall (contributing towards blocked gutters) and associated anxieties
regarding safety.

A replacement planting condition for a Birch tree is still outstanding for Tree Work
Application (ref: TP/10/00111/X). The requirement to plant this tree has clearly not been
considered with the lack of amenity space and the overall cramped nature of the site not
offering sufficient scope for trees to be planted and develop into maturity.

In light of the above concerns and the associated impact on trees and potential loss of
public amenity, it is not considered that a development of this scale is achievable with the
tree constraints of the site as numerous as they are.

Therefore it is considered that the proposed dwelling, by virtue of its juxtapositioning, will
present future pressure to fell or prune trees the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.
Such pressure will be difficult for the Council to defend and will ultimately lead to a loss of
public amenity value.

Sustainability Issues

                                              15
The Energy and Resources Statement submitted as part of the application states that the
proposals will comply with the provisions of Policy PCS31. Had the scheme been
acceptable in all other respects, a condition could have been imposed to ensure this.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

Heathland Mitigation

The application necessitates a contribution of £1724.00 (plus admin fee) towards
Heathland mitigation in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Site Specific Allocations and
Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012) and Policy PCS28 of the
Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009).

No recreation or transportation contributions have been justified directly in respect of this
scheme and as such are therefore not being sought on this occasion.

At the time of writing , no signed Legal Agreement has been received in respect of the
required heathland contribution.

RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that this application be Refused for the following reasons:

     Reasons

      1. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
      The proposed severance of the plot and resultant dwelling in the newly formed
      plot would appear incongruous with the established pattern of development,
      where dwellings typically front roads. The proposal fails to assemble sufficient
      land to be able to accommodate a configuration of development and building
      to plot ratio that preserves the character of the area and the prevailing pattern
      of development. The proposal would therefore not contribute positively to the
      character of the area in terms of the principle to sever the plot, site coverage of
      built form; or provide adequate usable amenity space, given the siting of
      important and protected trees on/around the site to amenity space. The
      proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS5 and PCS23 of
      the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009).

      2. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
      The proposed introduction of dwellings and associated amenity space in this
      location/layout, will present future pressure to fell or prune trees the subject of
      a Tree Preservation Order. Such pressure will be difficult for the Council to
      defend and will ultimately lead to a loss of public amenity value. As such, the
      proposals are contrary to Policy DM1 of the Site Specific Allocations and
      Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted 2012).
      3. RR060 (5Km of a Site of Specific Interest)
      The proposal is within 5Km of a Site of Specific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is
      also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area)
      and Ramsar site, and is also part of the Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of
      Conservation). The proximity of these European sites (SPA and SAC) means

                                              16
that determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the
requirements of the Habitat Regulations 1994, in particular Regulations 48 and
49.

If the Council had been minded to grant permission in all other respects it
would have to carry out an appropriate assessment in accordance with the
advice and procedure set out broadly in Circular 06/2005. The applicant has
failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the
proposals will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland. It is clear, on
the basis of advice from English Nature that, the proposed development would
in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to
heathland and in the absence of any form of acceptable mitigation be likely to
have an adverse effect on the heathland special features including those which
are SPA and SAC features. Having regard to the Waddenzee judgement (ECJ
case C-127/02) the Council is not in a position to be convinced that there is no
reasonable scientific doubt to the contrary. For these reasons, and without
needing to conclude the appropriate assessment, the proposal is considered
contrary to the recommendations of the Berne Convention Standing
Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands, and
Policies PCS28 and PCS29 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, and Policy DM9
of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies (April
2012)




                                      17
ITEM NO                     03
APPLICATION NO.             APP/12/00867/F
APPLICATION TYPE            Full
SITE ADDRESS                1A Lawrence Drive, Poole, BH13 7ER

PROPOSALS                   Demolition of existing building, erection of a single
                            building split into two houses.( Revised Scheme)
REGISTERED                  4 July, 2012
APPLICANT                   Mr A Price
AGENT                       MOR-Architecture

WARD                        Canford Cliffs


CASE OFFICER                Caroline Palmer



INTRODUCTION
This application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Parker due to
neighbour concerns.

Recommendation for Grant Upfront Payment

THE PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing building, erection of a single building split into two houses.( Revised
Scheme).

MAIN ISSUES

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is currently occupied by a single traditional two-storey detached
dwelling. The character of the area is predominantly one of large detached dwellings set
within large plots. The boundaries to most sites have mature trees and landscape
meaning many properties are only glimpsed from public view. There are a number of
properties along this road which have been extensively altered, extended and replaced
with larger properties. The site is located on the corner of Canford Cliffs Road and
Lawrence Drive adjacent to the boundary of the Branksome Park Conservation Area,
which lies to the east of the site. The boundary to the site has substantial planting which
partly screens views into the site. The site is flat and the existing house dates from the
early 20th century.

The neighbouring property in Lawrence Drive is a large detached two-storey dwelling with
rooms in the roof.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

                                              18
Reference: PREA/12/00078
Description: Pre-Application advice to demolish existing and erect 2 houses
Decision: Pre-App Response Provided
Date: 08/05/2012

Reference: APP/11/01608/F
Description: Demolition of existing building, erection of a single building split into two
houses.**WITHDRAWN**
Decision: Withdrawn
Date: 10/02/2012

Reference: PREA/11/00139
Description: Demolish existing house to provide 2 no. co-joined 2-storey dwellings on a
severed plot
Decision: Pre-App Response Provided
Date: 05/09/2011

Reference: 08/39972/000/P
Description: Outline application to demolish existing building and erect 2 new 4+ bed
houses with associated parking.
Decision: Refuse
Date: 18/09/2008
Appeal Decision Date: 20/04/2009
Appeal Decision: Dismissed

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

May 2012 - Pre-application advice given in relation to the submitted scheme. The advice
was that such an application was likely to gain officer support.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

As agreed procedures.

CONSULTATIONS

The Head of Transportation Services -

Natural England - no objection subject to heathland contributions and the carrying out of a
bat survey.

CPRE - Object to the proposals for the following reasons: impact on the character of the
area; the setting of a precedent; the size and massing of the building; the architectural
design of the building; the impact on trees; and the overdevelopment of the site.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters from local residents received raising concerns including: impact on the
character of the area; the setting of a precedent; the size and massing of the building; the

                                              19
architectural design of the building; the impact on trees; the overdevelopment of the site;
loss of privacy to neighbouring homes; and the impact on highway safety.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

LOCAL CONTEXT

The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)

PCS05      Broad Locations for Residential Development
PCS23      Local Distinctiveness
PCS28      Dorset Heaths International Designations
PCS31      Sustainable Energy - General
PCS32      Sustainable Homes
PCS35      Energy And Resources Statements
PCS36      Joint Working
PCS37      The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places

Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted 2012)

DM1        Design
DM2        Heritage Assets
DM7        Accessibility and Safety
DM9        Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The Impact on the Character of the Area on the Streetscene

The character of the area is predominantly one of large detached dwellings set within
substantial plots. The current plot is of a size that reflects the character of the area and
the pattern of development in the area. The proposed scheme will result in the existing
plot being severed and the erection of a replacement dwelling and an additional dwelling.
Currently the existing dwelling on the plot fronts on to Lawrence Drive. The existing
building can be glimpsed from Canford Cliffs Road.

The 2008 application that went to appeal was for two houses on this site. The current
application seeks to erect a single building on the site containing a pair of semi-detached
houses. The Inspectors Decision stated that:

'The plans show how the appeal site would be subdivided. On each plot would be quite a
large house. The smaller size of each new plot, particularly plot 2, would be inconsistent
with the generally much larger existing residential curtilages near to the appeal site. As a
result the new houses would have significantly less space around them than their
neighbours and so look out of place. The house on plot 1 would also come much closer
to Lawrence Drive and Canford Cliffs Road than the existing dwelling. Due to this and its

                                              20
size, irrespective of any final appearance, the house would have an imposing and
unforgiving presence in contrast to the more restrained siting of existing houses which are
set further away from their leafy roadside frontages

Despite some existing trees, gaps between them and the area needed for the drive into
plot 2 mean that the relative closeness of the houses would be seen. Furthermore, I
doubt the effectiveness of any proposed planting to obscure views of the houses. The
very limited space between the house on plot 1 and its side boundary with Canford Cliffs
Road would restrict the type of trees that could be grown successfully. Even if they did
mature the house would still be visible and the trees would look as though they had been
forced into this tight space. This would not respect the subtler presence of existing
houses which are mainly set back further from their treed boundaries. In any event,
planting should complement proposals and not be relied upon to disguise development
that would be inherently out of character with the spatial qualities of the area'.

This application seeks to address all of these issues. The fact that the current scheme is
for one building split into two houses ensures that the concern relating to the size of the
plots has been addressed. The design of the building is such that it successfully turns the
corner from Canford Cliffs Road into Lawrence Drive, whilst appearing as a single
dwelling. This The roof design orientates the building predominantly to Lawrence Drive
with more of a side view from Canford Cliffs Road, which is characteristic of the area.

The footprint of the proposed building is only marginally larger than that of the existing
house on the site. The bulk and scale result in a more prominent building than the
existing house. However, as this is a prominent corner plot and there are other very large
houses in the vicinity on Canford Cliffs, a positive building such as that proposed is
considered to be acceptable and an enhancement to this plot.

Overall, the proposal enhances the existing landscape features of the site and identifies
the landscape as an integral part of the development. The scale and design of the two
joined houses is considered to enhance the character of the site and the adjacent
Conservation Area and protects the balance between the built form and the landscaping.

The proposal seeks to respects the setting and character of the site, surrounding area and
adjoining buildings by virtue of its, siting, landscape, scale density, massing, height,
design details, materials and appearance. There are some concerns relating to the linear
length of the building however through negotiation the applicant has reduced the roof
length and it is felt that with the frontage landscape this length of building will not be
readily seen from outside the site. Through use of materials and detailing the new
proposal turns the corner successfully into Lawrence Drive.

In an assessment of landscape and trees it is felt that the scheme provides opportunity to
reinforce and enhance the current landscape boundaries. The scheme proposes a
number of replanted trees will be are secured by an appropriate condition. At the time of
writing the final comments from the tree team had not been received and these will be
reported to the Committee when presented.

Neighbouring Privacy and Amenity

Given the design of the building and its orientation in relation to neighbouring properties

                                            21
and the existing and proposed landscaping, the proposed dwellings will cause no material
harm to the privacy currently enjoyed by neighbouring dwellings. A condition will be
imposed to require the erection of obscure glazed screens on the sides of both balconies
at first floor level adjacent to No.1 Lawrence Drive. This will ensure that there is no loss of
privacy caused by these areas.

The proposed dwellings would cause no material harm to the light of any neighbouring
properties as the building is a sufficient distance from both the property at No.1 Lawrence
Drive and No.128 Canford Cliffs Road.

Sustainability Issues

The Energy and Resource Statement states that the scheme will aim to achieve a
minimum of Code Level 4 of Code for Sustainable Homes. This will be secured by
condition.

Trees/Landscaping

Arboricultural comments to follow. These will be reported to Planning Committee.

Highways/Parking

Highways comments to follow. These will be reported to Planning Committee.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

Heathland Mitigation

The application necessitates a contribution of £1724.00 (plus admin fee) towards
Heathland mitigation in accordance with Policies DM9 of the SSADPD (Adopted 2012)
and PCS 37 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009) and the adopted Dorset
Heathlands Interim Planning Framework.

Recreation Contributions

Leisure Services will not be requesting a collection of Recreational Contributions from this
development as there is no open space close enough to be deemed ‘directly related’ and
where there is a deficiency of provision that needs to be remedied by a contribution from
this development in order for planning permission to be granted.

CONCLUSION

It is felt that this scheme proposes some substantial improvements upon the previous
application. The scheme uses a traditional form of building but reinterprets this in a more
contemporary style. The proposed materials will allow the building to weather naturally
and sit more harmoniously in its verdant setting. Through careful analysis the proposal
complies with the relevant policies in the Core Strategy and Site Specific Allocations and
Development Management Policies DPD.

RECOMMENDATION

                                              22
It is therefore recommended that this application be Grant Upfront Payment subject to
the following:

Conditions

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

     2. GN030 (Sample of Materials)

     3. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
     An obscure glazed screen of at least 1.8 metres in height shall be erected
     along the side of the balcony adjacent to No.23 shall be erected and shall
     thereafter be permanently retained.

     Reason -
     In the interests of privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties and in
     accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development
     Management Policies (April 2012).

     4. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3)

     5. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted)


     Informative Notes

     1. IN62 (Summary of Reasons for Decision)
     Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England)
     Order 2010

     The proposed development has been tested against the following policies of
     the Development Plan, including planning legislation and the National Planning
     Policy Framework, and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, is not in
     conflict with the following policies:

     Overall, the proposal enhances the existing landscape features of the site and
     identifies the landscape as an integral part of the development. The scale and
     design of the two joined houses is considered to enhance the character of the
     site and the adjacent Conservation Area and protects the balance between the
     built form and the landscaping. The proposal seeks to respects the setting and
     character of the site, surrounding area and adjoining buildings by virtue of its,
     siting, landscape, scale density, massing, height, design details, materials and
     appearance. There are some concerns relating to the linear length of the
     building however through negotiation the applicant has reduced the roof length
     and it is felt that with the frontage landscape this length of building will not be
     readily seen from outside the site. Through use of materials and detailing the
     new proposal turns the corner successfully into Lawrence Drive - Policies
     PCS05, PCS23, DM1 and DM2

     In an assessment of landscape and trees it is felt that the scheme provides

                                             23
opportunity to reinforce and enhance the current landscape boundaries. The
scheme proposes a number of replanted trees will be are secured by an
appropriate condition. At the time of writing the final comments from the tree
team had not been received and these will be reported to the Committee when
presented - Policy DM1 and Policy PCS23

Given the design of the building and its orientation in relation to neighbouring
properties and the existing and proposed landscaping, the proposed dwellings
will cause no material harm to the privacy currently enjoyed by neighbouring
dwellings. A condition will be imposed to require the erection of obscure
glazed screens on the sides of both balconies at first floor level adjacent to
No.1 Lawrence Drive. This will ensure that there is no loss of privacy caused
by these areas. The proposed dwellings would cause no material harm to the
light of any neighbouring properties as the building is a sufficient distance from
both the property at No.1 Lawrence Drive and No.128 Canford Cliffs Road -
Policy DM1

The Energy and Resource Statement states that the scheme will aim to
achieve a minimum of Code Level 4 of Code for Sustainable Homes. This will
be secured by condition - Policies - PCS31, PCS32 and PCS35

The application necessitates a contribution of £1724.00 (plus admin fee)
towards Heathland mitigation in accordance with Policies DM9 of the SSADPD
(Adopted 2012) and PCS 37 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009) and
the adopted Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework. Leisure Services
will not be requesting a collection of Recreational Contributions from this
development as there is no open space close enough to be deemed ‘directly
related’ and where there is a deficiency of provision that needs to be remedied
by a contribution from this development in order for planning permission to be
granted - Policies PCS28, PCS36, PCS37 and DM9




                                       24
ITEM NO                    04
APPLICATION NO.            APP/12/00585/F
APPLICATION TYPE           Full
SITE ADDRESS               Parkstone Grammar School, Sopers Lane, Poole, BH17
                           7EP

PROPOSALS                  Construct a new access track to new student parking
                           area on grass.
REGISTERED                 23 May, 2012
APPLICANT                   Parkstone Grammar School
AGENT                      Mr Clegg

WARD                       Creekmoor


CASE OFFICER               Julie Shearing



INTRODUCTION
This application is brought before committee due to the proximity of the proposal to the
home of a Councillor.

Recommendation for Refuse

THE PROPOSAL

Construct an access track to serve new student parking area on grass.

MAIN ISSUES

To assess the impact on the streetscene and character of the area and residential privacy
and amenity.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site has vehicular access off Sopers Lane and shares a common
boundary with the rear gardens of homes in Sopers Lane. The school grounds also front
onto Waterloo Road and Cabot Lane. The trees on the site are important features in the
streetscene.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There have been numerous applications on this site associated with alterations and
extensions to the school. The most recent are detailed below:

2008: Construction of new Art and Technology block and alterations to existing building
and car park: Approved: APP/08/00226/F/032: This consent secured a requirement for a

                                            25
School Travel Plan to be agreed and implemented.

2008: Construction of a sports hall containing: 4 badminton courts; 2 changing rooms, w.c.
& shower facilities; a meeting room and disabled changing room with w.c. facility:
Approved: APP/08/00226/F/033

2009: Erect a single storey dining room extension adjacent to the existing school hall.
Approved: APP/09/01303/F

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

None sought.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

As agreed procedures.

CONSULTATIONS

Transportation Officer - see report below.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of representation has been received. The following concerns are raised:

   the land presently is a grass field, but very little grass remains and the effects on the
    landscape are drastic;
   noise has grown substantially as the area is already being used as a car park by more
    than 50 cars;
   traffic has increased greatly in Sopers Lane and Waterloo Road, with many of the cars
    occupied by only the driver. Safety on Sopers Lane is therefore a concern;
   there is a park and ride within one mile of the school which is little used expect for
    Christmas the school could utilise it as an option.
   all surrounding properties have had their privacy reduced with cars parking within 20
    feet of garden fences.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
POLICY AND GUIDANCE

The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)

PCS15      Access and Movement
PCS23      Local Distinctiveness

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

DM1        Design

                                              26
DM8        Demand Management

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The proposal is partly retrospective since cars already using the grassed area, causing
wear to the surface and exposing tree roots. The proposal is intended to provide access
to an informal car parking area, which would not be marked out, and would not have clear
boundaries though it is suggested that its boundaries would be taped to control where
cars are parked. The application nevertheless identifies the extent of the proposed car
parking area. The parking is not intended to support new development proposals but is
instead to be provided for use by students in the two established sixth form years who are,
in many cases, choosing to drive to the school.

The proposal is well screened from the road due to existing hedging and trees along the
boundary with Waterloo Road. There will be no impact on the streetscene.

In terms of residential privacy and amenity, there is sufficient screening on the boundary
that there is no impact in terms of overlooking. The proximity of the parking to adjacent
homes would be similar to existing parking at the school.

There are important trees on site, and their future heath needs to be ensured.

In 2008 planning permission was given for the construction of new Art and Technology
block; for alterations to the existing building; and car parking. A travel plan was secured by
condition. The current proposals are at odds with, and contrary to the aims of that Travel
Plan as they would encourages the use of cars, a non-sustainable travel modes. The
proposals would moreover be contrary to the provisions of Policy DM8 (Demand
Management) which seeks to manage the growth of traffic and additional pressure on the
road network. The proposed development would not actively promote access to the
school by pedestrians and cyclists, nor would it contribute to reducing Poole's carbon
footprint.

The proposals also fail to meet Strategic Objective 4 of the Core Strategy which seeks to
ensure that there is a reduction in single occupancy trips by car, improvement in air quality
and improved health.

CONCLUSION

The proposals would not adversely affect the streetscene and would not have a significant
impact on any neighbouring privacy or amenity.

The proposal is not however in accordance with the provisions of the approved travel plan
and fails to support the promotion of sustainable access and movement, fails to contribute
to reducing carbon emission and does not support a move to sustainable travel choices.
The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that this application be Refused for the following reasons:



                                             27
Reasons

1. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
The proposal would not support the promotion of sustainable access and
movement, fails to contribute to reducing carbon emissions and would not
support a move towards more sustainable travel choices. It is therefore
contrary to the provisions of Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy and
DM8 (Demand Management) of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and
Development Management Polices DPD. The proposal does not support the
Key Outcomes of Strategic Objective 4 of the Poole Core Strategy including
reducing single occupancy trips by car, improved air quality and improved
health.




                                    28
ITEM NO                    05
APPLICATION NO.            APP/12/00820/F
APPLICATION TYPE           Full
SITE ADDRESS               Mary Tudor Cottage, 8 Market Street, Poole, BH15 1NF

PROPOSALS                  Internal alterations; install vent to front elevation; and
                           replacement garage door to Levets Lane frontage of
                           outbuilding (Retrospective)
REGISTERED                 19 June, 2012
APPLICANT                  Mr D Evans
AGENT                      Eric J Whapples

WARD                       Poole Town

CONSERVATION AREA Old Town


CASE OFFICER               Hazel Brushett



INTRODUCTION
This application is brought before committee because the application is adjacent to the
home of a Councillor

Recommendation for Grant

THE PROPOSAL

Internal works to Mary Tudor Cottage, install extract vent cover to front elevation of Mary
Tudor Cottage and replacement garage door to the outbuilding fronting Levets Lane.

MAIN ISSUES

Impact of proposal on the character and appearance of the conservation area, Mary Tudor
Cottage and the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings.

SITE DESCRIPTION

   The application site is situated within the Old Town Conservation Area at the centre of
    Poole’s historic area and comprises the curtilage of Mary Tudor Cottage, a Grade II
    Listed Building which fronts Market Street.

   To the rear of the site is a detached outbuilding that, together with the garden walls,
    are covered by the listed building grading, The outbuilding is largely constructed in
    brick under a tiled roof and was partly rebuilt in the late 1980s and early 1990s under
    planning consent 14850/7 referred to below.


                                             29
   Levets Lane at the rear of the application site affords important views of adjoining
    Listed Buildings and of the outbuilding and its setting within the curtilage of the listed
    building. The outbuilding is in a prominent position within the lane.

   The surrounding area has an historic and attractive quality with important views; lanes
    and alleyways within the conservation area that contribute to its character and
    appearance; and comprises a mixture of residential, commercial, and ecclesiastical
    uses.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

1989: (5/89/14850/7) Alterations and additions to Annexe to form ground floor WC,
alternative access to dining room, new bathroom on the first floor and provide 2 bedrooms
and a bathroom over the separate garage for use in conjunction with the main house.
Approved

1999: (99/14850/012/F) Relief of Conditions 3 and 5 of above consent to allow
accommodation over garage to be let separately to main house. Refused.

2000: (99/14850/013/F) Relief of conditions 3 and 5 of planning permission
5/89/14850/7/F dated 19.5.89 to allow accommodation over garage to be let separately
from the main house. Planning permission refused but allowed on appeal

2009: (APP/09/01339/F) Single storey extensions & alterations to roof (including dormers)
to outbuilding, removal of swimming pool & increase height of part of boundary wall by
300mm. Planning permission refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed.

Other alterations have also been approved as follows:

   Two storey extension and alterations to Levets Lane building: Approved 22 March
    2011 (APP/10/106147/F and APP/10/106148/L)

   External alterations to remove external waste pipes and flue on rear elevation and
    erect a storage building to house boiler and cycles: Approved 23 March 2011
    (APP/10/106149/F and APP/10/106150/L)

    Replacement "up and over" garage door to Levets Lane building: Approved 18th April
    2011 (APP/10/01645/L / APP/10/01644/F)

   Internal Alterations: Approved 1st July 2011 (APP/11/00605/L)

    Increase boundary wall by 300mm:              Approved         21st   November     2011
    (APP/11/01278/F and APP/11/01279/L)

   Construct short length of wall: Approved 21st November 2011 (APP/11/01295/F and
    APP/11/01296/L)

The works the subject of the current application are also the subject of an application for
Listed Building Consent under reference APP/12/00821/L


                                             30
PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

The works that comprise this current application, as itemised below, all arose as a result
of monitoring the progress on site of the above consents by the Case Officer. The works
progressed with the agreement in principle of the Case Officer in response to
opportunities and constraints arising as the works progressed and intended to best ensure
the maximum retention of historic fabric and to best preserve and reveal the historic
character of the buildings.

CONSULTATIONS

Notice of the application was posted on site, an advertisement placed in the local press
and adjoining residents notified.

REPRESENTATIONS

English Heritage – No comment.

Poole Old Town Conservation Group – No comment

One letter of objection has been received from an adjacent resident in which they express
concern that the nature of the proposals are unclear and that a security light causes harm
to their amenities

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

NPPF

The relevant Strategic Objectives (SOs) of the Poole Core Strategy include:-

SO6, to deliver high quality, distinctive and self reliant places.

LOCAL CONTEXT

The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)

PCS23         Local Distinctiveness

Site Specific Allocations

DM02          Historic Environment



                                               31
Supplementary Planning Guidance

Old Town Conservation Area Appraisal

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

This application is intended principally to authorise minor works that have arisen during
the implementation of various recent consents where opportunities or constraints arising
as the work progressed have resulted in extra or alternative works being undertaken with
a view to ensuring the maximum retention of historic fabric and better revealing the
historic character of the building. These works were in each case undertaken in
consultation with the Council's Conservation Officer. Both these and the previously
approved works have now been completed.

The works are identified on drawings 1549 -02 Rev P and 1549-29 (received on 23rd July
2012) and comprise the following:

   Take down a short section of low garden wall and replacing with a wall and railings to
    match the existing adjacent section;
   Remove modern plasterboard lining to first floor shower area and leave Tudor
    brickwork and timbers exposed;
   installing new drainage run to svp on ground floor;
   installing new plasterboard lining to kitchen;
   Installing extract duct to first floor and black cast iron vent to front elevation of Mary
    Tudor Cottage; and
   Set back garage door to Levets lane building and face masonry pier with timber
    boarding.

Most of these works are minor and internal.

The security light does not form part of this application.

CONCLUSION

There is no detrimental impact on the character of the building, the neighbouring
properties or the character of the conservation area, due to the works the subject of this
application, all of which were undertaken to better preserve and reveal the historic fabric,
character and significance of the building and its curtilage, and the works can therefore be
approved. No conditions are required since the application is retrospective.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None

RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted

       Informative Notes


                                              32
1. IN62 (Summary of Reasons for Decision)
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England)
Order 2010

The proposed development has been tested against the following policies of
the Development Plan, including planning legislation and the National Planning
Policy Framework, and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, is not in
conflict with the following policies:

SO6, to deliver high quality, distinctive and self reliant places, PCS23
          Local Distinctiveness and DM02 Historic Environment




                                       33
ITEM NO                    06
APPLICATION NO.            APP/12/00821/L
APPLICATION TYPE           Listed Building - Alter/Extend
SITE ADDRESS               Mary Tudor Cottage, 8 Market Street, Poole, BH15 1NF

PROPOSALS                  Internal alterations; install vent to front elevation; and
                           replacement garage door to Levets Lane frontage of
                           outbuilding (Retrospective)
REGISTERED                 19 June, 2012
APPLICANT                  Mr D Evans
AGENT                      Eric J Whapples

WARD                       Poole Town

CONSERVATION AREA Old Town


CASE OFFICER               Hazel Brushett



INTRODUCTION
This application is brought before committee because the application site is adjacent to
the home of a Councillor

Recommendation for Grant

THE PROPOSAL

Internal works to Mary Tudor Cottage, install extract vent cover to front elevation of Mary
Tudor Cottage and replacement garage door to the outbuilding fronting Levets Lane.

MAIN ISSUES

Impact of proposal on the character and appearance of the conservation area, Mary Tudor
Cottage and the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings.

SITE DESCRIPTION

   The application site is situated within the Old Town Conservation Area at the centre of
    Poole’s historic area and comprises the curtilage of Mary Tudor Cottage, a Grade II
    Listed Building which fronts Market Street.

   To the rear of the site is a detached outbuilding that, together with the garden walls,
    are covered by the listed building grading, The outbuilding is largely constructed in
    brick under a tiled roof and was partly rebuilt in the late 1980s and early 1990s under
    planning consent 14850/7 referred to below.


                                             34
   Levets Lane at the rear of the application site affords important views of adjoining
    Listed Buildings and of the outbuilding and its setting within the curtilage of the listed
    building. The outbuilding is in a prominent position within the lane.

   The surrounding area has an historic and attractive quality with important views; lanes
    and alleyways within the conservation area that contribute to its character and
    appearance; and comprises a mixture of residential, commercial, and ecclesiastical
    uses.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

1989: (5/89/14850/7) Alterations and additions to Annexe to form ground floor WC,
alternative access to dining room, new bathroom on the first floor and provide 2 bedrooms
and a bathroom over the separate garage for use in conjunction with the main house.
Approved

1999: (99/14850/012/F) Relief of Conditions 3 and 5 of above consent to allow
accommodation over garage to be let separately to main house. Refused.

2000: (99/14850/013/F) Relief of conditions 3 and 5 of planning permission
5/89/14850/7/F dated 19.5.89 to allow accommodation over garage to be let separately
from the main house. Planning permission refused but allowed on appeal

2009: (APP/09/01339/F) Single storey extensions & alterations to roof (including dormers)
to outbuilding, removal of swimming pool & increase height of part of boundary wall by
300mm. Planning permission refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed.

Other alterations have also been approved as follows:

   Two storey extension and alterations to Levets Lane building: Approved 22 March
    2011 (APP/10/106147/F and APP/10/106148/L)

   External alterations to remove external waste pipes and flue on rear elevation and
    erect a storage building to house boiler and cycles: Approved 23 March 2011
    (APP/10/106149/F and APP/10/106150/L)

    Replacement "up and over" garage door to Levets Lane building: Approved 18th April
    2011 (APP/10/01645/L / APP/10/01644/F)

   Internal Alterations: Approved 1st July 2011 (APP/11/00605/L)

    Increase boundary wall by 300mm:              Approved         21st   November     2011
    (APP/11/01278/F and APP/11/01279/L)

   Construct short length of wall: Approved 21st November 2011 (APP/11/01295/F and
    APP/11/01296/L)

The works the subject of the current application are also the subject of an application for
planning permission under reference APP/12/00820/F


                                             35
PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

The works that comprise this current application, as itemised below, all arose as a result
of monitoring the progress on site of the above consents by the Case Officer. The works
progressed with the agreement in principle of the Case Officer in response to
opportunities and constraints arising as the works progressed and intended to best ensure
the maximum retention of historic fabric and to best preserve and reveal the historic
character of the buildings.

CONSULTATIONS

Notice of the application was posted on site, an advertisement placed in the local press
and adjoining residents notified.

REPRESENTATIONS

English Heritage – No comment.

Poole Old Town Conservation Group – No comment

One letter of objection has been received from an adjacent resident in which they express
concern that the nature of the proposals are unclear and that a security light causes harm
to their amenities

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

NPPF

The relevant Strategic Objectives (SOs) of the Poole Core Strategy include:-

SO6, to deliver high quality, distinctive and self reliant places.

LOCAL CONTEXT

The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)

PCS23         Local Distinctiveness

Site Specific Allocations

DM02          Historic Environment

Supplementary Planning Guidance

                                               36
Old Town Conservation Area Appraisal

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

This application is intended principally to authorise minor works that have arisen during
the implementation of various recent consents where opportunities or constraints arising
as the work progressed have resulted in extra or alternative works being undertaken with
a view to ensuring the maximum retention of historic fabric and better revealing the
historic character of the building. These works were in each case undertaken in
consultation with the Council's Conservation Officer. Both these and the previously
approved works have now been completed.

The works are identified on drawings 1549 -02 Rev P and 1549-29 (received on 23rd July
2012) and comprise the following:

   Take down a short section of low garden wall and replacing with a wall and railings to
    match the existing adjacent section;
   Remove modern plasterboard lining to first floor shower area and leave Tudor
    brickwork and timbers exposed;
   installing new drainage run to svp on ground floor;
   installing new plasterboard lining to kitchen;
   Installing extract duct to first floor and black cast iron vent to front elevation of Mary
    Tudor Cottage; and
   Set back garage door to Levets lane building and face masonry pier with timber
    boarding.

Most of these works are minor and internal.

The security light does not form part of this application.

CONCLUSION

There is no detrimental impact on the character of the building, the neighbouring
properties or the character of the conservation area, due to the works the subject of this
application, all of which were undertaken to better preserve and reveal the historic fabric,
character and significance of the building and its curtilage, and the works can therefore be
approved. No conditions are required since the application is retrospective.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None

RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted




                                              37
ITEM NO                     07
APPLICATION NO.             APP/12/00892/F
APPLICATION TYPE            Full
SITE ADDRESS                32 Egmont Road, Poole, BH16 5BZ

PROPOSALS                   Erect rear 2 storey extension (revised scheme) (as
                            amended plans received 31st July 2012).
REGISTERED                  4 July, 2012
APPLICANT                   Mr Viccars
AGENT                       Jo D Designs

WARD                        Hamworthy West


CASE OFFICER                Emma MacWilliam



INTRODUCTION
This application is brought before Committee due to the applicant being related to
Councillor Wilkins.

Recommendation for Refuse

THE PROPOSAL

Erect rear 2 storey extension (revised scheme) (as amended plans received 31st August
2012).

MAIN ISSUES

Impact on character and appearance of the streetscene and surrounding area and
amenities of adjacent properties. Whether the changes are sufficient to overcome the
previous reasons for refusal.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is occupied by a semi detached house and is located on the north west side of
Egmont Road. The surrounding area is residential in character and comprises properties
of similar style and design, including semi detached and terraced houses. Properties have
a staggered building line and are set in linear plots.

The application site is bounded to the rear by Turlin Moor Recreation Ground and
residential garaging is sited directly to the east of the site. There is a large mature silver
birch tree to the east of the site which is located on the open space to the rear and the site
is within close proximity to the Poole Harbour SSSI site. This tree offers significant
amenity value to the streetscene and character of the area.


                                             38
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2005 - Erect single storey extension to the rear. Granted.

2012 - Rear extension to turn single storey into 2 storey (as amended by plans received
4th May 2012). Refused. Reasons for refusal are as follows:

1) The proposed extension, by reason of its size and mass, would neither be subservient
to nor integrate well with the original building, causing material harm to its external
appearance and the streetscene generally. The extension, cumulatively with the existing
additions, would create a dominant and cramped form of development which would fail to
respect the setting or size of the site. The proposal would therefore fail to positively
contribute to or enhance the setting or character of the site or surrounding area. As such
the proposals are contrary to the provisions of Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy
Adopted February 2009, DM1 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development
Management Policies DPD and ‘A Design Code' Supplementary Planning Guidance.

2) The proposed extension by reason of its position, height and projection will be unduly
dominant and overbearing when viewed from the rear garden areas and windows of no.
34 Egmont Road. Furthermore the extension, by way of siting and height would give rise
to materially harmful loss of light to the rear windows and garden areas of no. 34 Egmont
Road. As such the proposals would be detrimental of the amenity of the residents of the
neighbouring property. The proposals are therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies
PCS23 of the Core Strategy (adopted February 2009) and DM1 of the Site Specific
Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

Flowing the previous reasons for refusal it was advised that reducing the ridge height,
removing the first floor flat roof extension and setting the hipped rood extension back at
first floor level by approx. 2m would be likely to be sufficient alterations to overcome the
previous reasons for refusal, subject to viewing drawings.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Standard neighbour notification letters and site notices posted at the access to the
adjacent garages and on the public open space to the rear. The site notices expire on
14th August 2012. At the time of writing no representation had been received, however
any forthcoming comments will be reported to Committee.

CONSULTATIONS

Property Services - records show that this site or part of this site may have restrictive
covenants where the Borough of Poole is beneficiary and as such, the applicant needs to
be aware that any decision which grants planning permission to the applicant does not
also grant the Borough of Poole's consent to the modification of the covenants.

REPRESENTATIONS


                                              39
At the time of writing no representations had been received, however any forthcoming
comments will be reported to Committee.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

The following policies are listed as applying to this application:

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

National Planning Policy Framework

LOCAL CONTEXT

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)
PCS23    Local Distinctiveness

Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies
DM1        Design
DM9        Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity

Supplementary Planning Documents
Parking & Highway Layout in Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance
A Design Code

Borough of Poole Characterisation Study (Final Report)(2010)

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

Since the refusal of the previous application the following amendments have been made:
    Omission of the first floor flat roof extension above the existing ground floor flat roof
       extension
    Reduction in ridge height by 0.6m and alterations from a pitched roof with gable
       end to hipped roof
    Setting back of the first floor extension by 1m from the rear of the ground floor
       extension and incorporation of a balcony on the resulting flat roof space
    Full length double doors at first floor level on the rear elevation serving the balcony
       serving the proposed bedrooms, as opposed to previously proposed windows
    1.6m high privacy screen to the west side of the balcony

   The proposed extensions will be visible from the street and from the open space to the
    rear. Whilst the proposed amendments are substantive, the proposed extension would
    still be materially harmful to the external appearance of the property by way of the
    proposed roof form and overall size and mass.

   The proposed hip does not reflect the shallow pitch of the roof of the existing house
    and would therefore fail to integrate with the existing house to the detriment of the

                                              40
    visual amenity of the existing property and streetscene.

   Whilst the removal of the flat roof first floor extension, setting back of the extension
    from the rear by 1m and the reduction in ridge height and formation of a hipped roof
    instead of a gable would reduce the overall mass of the extension when viewed from
    the streetscene and from neighbouring properties, this is not sufficient to overcome the
    previous reasons for refusal. The extension would still, cumulatively with the existing
    additions, create a dominant and cramped form of development which would fail to
    respect the setting or size of the site.

   The proposal would therefore fail to positively contribute to or enhance the setting or
    character of the site or surrounding area.

   Again, whilst the proposed amendments are significant, the extension would still be
    materially harmful to the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of
    the proposed roof form and overall size and mass. The proposed extension by reason
    of its position, height and projection will still be unduly dominant and overbearing when
    viewed from the rear garden areas and rear windows of no. 34 Egmont Road, causing
    material harm to the outlook from this property.

   Alongside this, due to the siting of No. 36 Egmont Road set back further in its plot the
    extension would give rise to a 'hemmed in' feeling to the occupants of No.34 from both
    the windows ion the rear elevation and the rear garden area.

   Furthermore the extension, by way of siting and height would give rise to materially
    harmful loss of light to the rear windows and garden areas of no. 34 .

   As such the proposals would be detrimental of the amenity of the residents of the
    neighbouring property and the alterations proposed are not sufficient to overcome this
    previous reason for refusal.

   The additional first floor doors on the rear elevation would serve bedrooms and would
    not give rise to any additional levels of overlooking or loss of privacy than already
    exists in the surrounding area. The additional first floor window on the east elevation of
    the house will overlook the garages and open space and will not give rise to materially
    harmful levels of overlooking or loss of privacy to the rear garden or rear or side
    windows of No. 30 due to the separation between the properties.

   The proposed balcony would not give rise to any materially harmful levels of
    overlooking due to the 1.6m high privacy screen on the west side and the siting and
    separation in relation to it and No. 30.

   There would be no significant impact upon light to No. 30 due to the spacing between
    the two properties and their orientation and the fact that No. 30 is set much further
    forward in its plot and within the streetscene.

   Whilst the extensions will reduce the amount of amenity space available to the house,
    it is considered that the resulting space will be acceptable to meet the needs of
    present and future occupiers.

                                              41
   The Local Planning Authority is confident that the extensions could be carried out
    without causing adverse impact to any important trees.

   The proposals would retain the same levels of on site parking provision as currently
    exists and would be sufficient to meet the needs of the development.

   Due to the small scale of this householder extension and fact that there would be no
    net gain in residential units the development would have no adverse impact upon the
    Poole Harbour SSSI site.

CONCLUSION

Whilst some substantive alterations have been made, it is not felt that they do enough to
address the previous reasons for refusal. The extension would fail to have an acceptable
relationship to the adjacent properties, would fail to integrate with the existing property,
would have a materially harmful impact upon the visual amenity of the streetscene and
would fail to compliment the character and appearance of the area. As such the
application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that this application be Refused for the following reasons:

      Reasons

      1. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
      The proposed extension, by reason of its size and mass and proposed roof
      form, would neither be subservient to nor integrate well with the original
      building, causing material harm to its external appearance and the streetscene
      generally. The extension, cumulatively with the existing additions, would create
      a dominant and cramped form of development which would fail to respect the
      setting or size of the site. The proposal would therefore fail to positively
      contribute to or enhance the setting or character of the site or surrounding
      area. As such the proposals are contrary to the provisions of Policy PCS23 of
      the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February 2009, DM1 of the Site Specific
      Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD and 'A Design Code'
      Supplementary Planning Guidance.
      2. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
      The proposed extension by reason of its position and projection will be unduly
      dominant and overbearing when viewed from the rear garden areas and
      windows of no. 34 Egmont Road. Furthermore the extension, by way of siting
      and scale would give rise to materially harmful loss of light to the rear windows
      and garden areas of no. 34 Egmont Road and would create a hemmed in
      effect to the occupiers of this property. As such the proposals would be
      detrimental of the amenity of the residents of the neighbouring property. The
      proposals are therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS23 of the
      Core Strategy (adopted February 2009) and DM1 of the Site Specific
      Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.



                                             42
ITEM NO                    08
APPLICATION NO.            APP/12/00738/F
APPLICATION TYPE           Full
SITE ADDRESS               3 Lawrence Drive, Poole, BH13 7EN

PROPOSALS                  Variation of Condition 1 of permission APP/12/00462/F,
                           pursuant to Planning Permission APP/11/00294/F to
                           sever land and erect 1no. 5-bedroom detached dwelling
                           with garaging (revised scheme)
REGISTERED                 18 June, 2012
APPLICANT                  Mr Heffer
AGENT                      Anders Roberts & Assoc

WARD                       Penn Hill
                           Canford Cliffs


CASE OFFICER               Darryl Howells



INTRODUCTION
This application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr. Mrs. Haines, in
response to a neighbour's concerns.

Recommendation for Grant with Conditions

THE PROPOSAL

Variation of Condition 1 of permission APP/12/00462/F, pursuant to Planning Permission
APP/11/00294/F to sever land and erect 1no. 5-bedroom detached dwelling with garaging
(revised scheme)

THE PROPOSAL

To consider whether the proposed additional windows will materially harm the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers?

SITE DESCRIPTION

The applicant site is at the end of the cul-de-sac of Lawrence Drive and is occupied by a
detached two and three-storey house, built in a 'New England' style of architecture and
materials. The character of the area is wholly residential, comprising detached houses of
various styles of architecture and materials, although all are traditional in form.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY



                                             43
Original House

2011 - Planning permission APP/11/00212/F was granted to demolish existing house and
erect 1 No detached house with detached garage block.

2012 - A revised planning application APP/12/00877/F to erect a detached house with
garage block and swimming pool is currently under consideration.

New House (Current application site)

2011 - Planning permission APP/11/00294/F was granted to sever land and erect a
detached 5 bedroom dwelling house with integral garage. This scheme has been
implemented and is substantially constructed, awaiting fitting out.

2012 - Non material amendment following approval of APP/11/00294/F to include a
condition to list drawing numbers: -
Drawing No. 8036/200 Rev B; Drawing No. 8036/201; Drawing No. 8036/202 Rev B was
approved.

2012 - Non-Material amendment following approval of APP/11/00294/F, to include a
condition to list following drawing numbers 8036/500 & 8036/501 & 8036/502 was refused
as the drawing numbers were different.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

None.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

None.

CONSULTATIONS

None.

REPRESENTATIONS

Site notices were displayed and neighbouring properties were sent notification of the
application.

The Head of Transportation Services: The proposed development would be served by
sufficient on site parking to satisfy the Council's adopted parking standards.

Natural England: No objection.

1 Household has submitted 3 letters of representation objecting to the proposed
development on the grounds that the additional windows will prejudice their amenities by
reason of overlooking.


                                            44
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)

PCS05      Broad Locations for Residential Development
PCS23      Local Distinctiveness
PCS28      Dorset Heaths International Designations
PCS31      Sustainable Energy
PCS32      Sustainable Homes
PCS35      Enery and Resources Statements
PCS36      Joint Working
PCS37      The Role of Developer Constributions in Shaping Places

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

DM1        Design
DM8        Demand Management

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

This planning application seeks to regularise minor alterations, including the formation of
additional windows, to the dwelling approved by Planning Permission APP/11/00294/F.
Specifically, those charges are:

   Creation of games room in the loft space;
   Formation of a flat roof dormer window on the side (east) elevation, serving the games
    room;
   Insertion of 3 windows and 3 velux windows on the rear (south) elevation;
   Repositioning of the dormer window on the side (west) elevation; and
   Repositioning of the clock tower.

The Proposed Games Room/ Dormer Window

The formation of habitable accommodation within the loft space of the house, makes an
efficient use of available space. The proposed dormer window will be positioned on the
side (east) elevation of the building, facing towards the dwelling's private garden but also
that of no.128 Candford Cliffs Road. The distance of separation between the dormer
window and the common boundary is 13 metres. Some partial views of the proposed
dormer are visible from the rear garden of no.128 Canford Cliffs Road however due to the
intervening landscaping and distance, no material harm caused by overlooking will occur.

The Proposed Windows/ Velux Windows

Three first floor windows and three velux windows have been added to the rear (south)

                                              45
elevation of the house as constructed. A first-floor rectangular window adjacent to the
chimney breast is to an en-suite. Two oval shaped windows adjacent to this are to the
stairwell and landing. There are partial views from these windows towards the
neighbouring property of no. 130 Canford Cliffs Road, and therefore it is appropriate to
require these windows to be obscured glazed by condition.

The proposed velux windows are to a corridor. The cills of these windows are 2.9 metres
above the finished floor level so will not give rise to any overlooking of any adjacent home.

The Proposed Repositioned Dormer Window

The proposed dormer on the side (west) elevation has been repositioned from the middle
of the side elevation to a position closer to the southern/ rear elevation to improve
headroom within an en-suite. There would be no material harm caused to neighbouring
properties as the outlook from this window faces towards the property's own garden.

The Proposed Repositioned Clock Tower

The relocation of the clock tower does not cause any consequence to the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers nor would it detract from the character or appearance of the
building or its setting.

INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS

The necessary financial contributions needed to mitigate the effects of the development
on Heathalnds, recreation and new transportation infrastructure have been secured
already by the original applicaiton APP/11/00294/F and paid in full.

CONCLUSION

The proposed changes are considered to the acceptable in light of adopted planning
policies.

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

     Conditions

     1. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))
     Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the first floor
     rectangular window serving the en-suite to bedroom no.2 and the oval shaped
     windows on the rear/ south elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass in a
     form sufficient to prevent external views and shall either be a fixed light or
     hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated
     by reason of opening.

     Reason -
     To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties and in
     accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development

                                             46
Management Policies (April 2012).

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

3. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3)

4. DR030 (Disposal of Surface Water)


Informative Notes

1. IN62 (Summary of Reasons for Decision)
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England)
Order 2010

The proposed development has been tested against the following policies of
the Development Plan, including planning legislation and the National Planning
Policy Framework, and in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, is not in
conflict with the following policies:

The proposed alterations and insertion of windows authorised by this planning
permission, will not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers
by reason of their distance of separation and where necessary the imposition
of obscured glazing by condition - Policies PCS23, PCS05 and DM1

Adequate on site car parking is secured by these development proposals -
DM1

The proposed works will result in the loss of several trees on site however
these losses are acceptable to the Council's arboriculturalist subject to
implementation of the approved arboricultural method statement and a
condition to secure their replacement- DM1, PCS05 and PCS23

An energy and resource statement has been submitted which outlines
methods for achieving 10% of its minimum energy demand by renewable
resources and sustainability - PCS31 & PCS32

This policy recognises the importance of working with partners to improve
community facilities and the transportation infrastructure. The proposed
development is supported by a financial contribution towards the mitigation of
effects of development and will therefore provide mitigation for Council
strategies - PCS36

This policy recognises the importance that developer contributions have in
respect of providing recreation provision, heathland mitigation and
improvements to the transportation infrastructure network. The proposed
development is supported by a financial contribution towards the mitigation of
effects of development and will therefore provide mitigation for Council
strategies - Policies PCS37 and PCS28


                                       47
48

								
To top