; Committee Report
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Committee Report


  • pg 1
									     y n        8 7 4 p a d         t   h e x c ti s
Ev e r o e 7 1 2 1 6 re _ g _ IDDra f 3 C i f E e u v e 1 0 5 re _ xe _ N No No N No No N No No N No No N No No N No No N N No N N No N N No N N No No N No No N No No N No No N No
                                                             7 p e IDs o        o       o       o       o       o       o o    o o    o o    o o       o       o       o                 /0 /2 8 0 0 4 h f x c i          d 2
                                                                                                                                                                               o ENV1 2 9 9 0 0 1 :3 :4 C i e E e u t ve Ol 5 1

         East Dorset District Council

         Planning Committee                  Agenda Item No 3
         29th September, 2008                Public Report

         New Retail Store, Car Park, Access and Associated
         Works and New Riverside Park, (as amended by plans
         received 7.8.08), Site of Existing Wimborne Cricket
         Ground, Rowlands Hill, Wimborne
            Item for Decision:                                                                                                                                                                                                    To determine the planning application
            Contributors:                                                                                                                                                                                                         Chief Executive
            Contact Officer:                                                                                                                                                                                                      Michael Hirsh, Head of Planning & Building Control
            Financial Implications:                                                                                                                                                                                               None in relation to the Council's Budgets see report in relation to the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  applicant's proposed package
            Council Priorities:                                                                                                                                                                                                   ENV1
            Recommendations:                                                                                                                                                                                                      To determine the planning application in accordance with the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  recommendation set out in full at the end of this report at
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  section 19.

1. Applicable Lead Member Area(s)
                                      1.1                                                            Environment.

2. Crime and Disorder – Section 17 Implications
                                      2.1                                                            There are crime and disorder implications and the Police Architectural Liaison
                                                                                                     Officer has been consulted and his letter is in Appendix 5(11)

3. Equalities and Risk Implications
                                      3.1                                                            There are equalities implications and these have been allowed for in the proposed
                                      3.2                                                            There are no risk implications associated with this report.

4. Proposed Development
                                      4.1                                                            The planning application is in detail and is supported by an Environmental
                                                                                                     Statement. It was submitted on 3 October 2007 and substantially amended with
                                                                                                     additional information and revisions to the details of the scheme under cover of a
                                                                                                     letter dated 6 August 2008.
                                      4.2                                                            The planning application is for a new retail store, car park, access and associated
                                                                                                     works with a new riverside park on the existing Wimborne Cricket Ground,
                                                                                                     Rowlands Hill, Wimborne.
                                      4.3                                                            Whilst the application is submitted on behalf of Waitrose, it needs to be assessed
                                                                                                     on its merits as a retail shop and not for a particular occupier.
                                      4.4                                                            The organisation of this report, by way of main headings is:
                                                                                                                                                                    Section 5 - Application site
                                                                                                                                                                    Section 6 - Description of the Proposals
                                                                                                                                                                    Section 7 - Consultation

              Section 8 - Social and socio-economic considerations
              Section 9 - Traffic, Revised Road Designs, Car Parking and the Travel Plan
              Section 10 - The impact on amenity in respect of the existing residential
               properties adjacent to the site including Stoneleigh Rest Home at 2
               Rowlands Hill and Streets Meadow
              Section 11 - The Assessment of the Store in its context within the
               Conservation Area
              Section 12 - Flood Risk, Surface Water Disposal and Pollution Control
              Section 13 - Open Space and Recreation
              Section 14 - The Site Ecology, Nature Conservation Requirements,
               including the perimeter trees
              Section 15 - Archaeology
              Section 16 - Renewable Energy
              Section 17 - The Package Offered by the Applicant
              Section 18 - Conclusions
              Section 19 - Recommendation with Reasons for Refusal and Informative
   4.5   The report does not include extensive references to the relevant policies.
         However, to enable the policies to be understood, these are set out in Appendix 1.
         To avoid unnecessary cross-referencing, the main headings used for the
         considerations in this report are supported by similar headings using the same
         numerical references in Appendix 1.

         Appendix 1 – Relevant local plan policies (cross referenced in the main text)
         Appendix 2 – Characterisation of the site and surroundings
         Appendix 3 – Comments on the Proposed Design by R Nother
         Appendix 4 – Response from Cushman & Wakefield, the Council‟s Shopping
         Appendix 5 – Consultee Responses
         Appendix 6 – Summary of Individual Responses from Members of the Public

5. Application site
   5.1   The application site, comprising 2 hectares (gross), is located within the centre of
         Wimborne on the existing Wimborne Cricket Ground. The site is bounded to the
         north by Streets Meadow care home, to the east by Rowlands Hill and to the south
         by Park Lane. The River Allen flows along the western edge of the site adjacent to
         the Crown Mead.
   5.2   The site is currently in use as a cricket pitch and comprises a grassed area and a
         dilapidated pavilion and associated structures. The site is enclosed along Park
         Lane and Rowlands Hill by brick walling and steel railings of varying height. The
         site is not available for public use.
   5.3   The main existing access is currently from the North West corner of the site via a
         bridge across the River Allen which also serves „Pippins‟. A small informal, private
         car park is provided adjacent to the pavilion.
   5.4   The site is located within the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area. An Oak tree,
         which is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), is located in the south

         west corner of the site. A Sycamore tree, also subject to a TPO, is located just
         outside of the north east boundary of the site.

6. Description of the Proposals

   Size of the store
   6.1   Detailed planning approval is being sought for a development comprising 2,861
         square meters (gross external) retail store, car park, access and associated works
         and new riverside park. The sales floor of the food store will comprise 1,834 sqm
         with a warehouse area of 595 sqm. Associated offices and staff restaurant are
         located at first floor level above the warehouse. (For comparison the existing
         Food Store in the Crown Mead has a gross external floor space of 2,067 sqm with
         a sales area of 1310sqm).
   6.2   The store and car park occupies approximately 60% of the site, being that part of
         the site furthest away from the River Allen (outside of the floodplain) and adjacent
         therefore to Rowlands Hill. The remaining part of the site will form a new open
         space which is bounded by the River Allen on its western edge. The park is
         crossed by new footways and a cycle path linking the „Pippins‟ bridge to the north
         and Park Lane.
   Car Parking and Access
   6.3   Car parking will be on two levels and provide 215 spaces in total, of which 66
         spaces will be provided on the upper deck and 149 spaces at the lower (semi
         basement) level. Disabled parking for 13 cars will be provided with 9 on the upper
         deck and four in the semi basement. Two parent and child parking spaces are
         provided on each level and cycle parking for 28 customer bicycles is provided
         adjacent to the main store entrance. Pedestrian access between floors is by a lift
         and stairs.
   6.4   Both the service yard and the car parking will be accessed from a new mini-
         roundabout to be provided on Rowlands Hill, just to the north of the existing
         junction with Park lane, Rowlands Hill and Lewens Lane. The design of this
         roundabout will facilitate a continuation of the existing left turn only into Park Lane
         as at present and will provide for a dedicated left turn into the proposed car park
         when arriving from the south. When arriving from a northerly direction, there will
         be a dedicated right turn. The Rowlands Hill carriageway will be widened to
         accommodate these works. The proposal will also involve the relocation of bus
         stops and the existing Rowlands Hill traffic lighted crossing, further north.
   6.5   From the roundabout the car park will be accessed via a ramp onto the upper
         deck. On the upper deck, a further mini roundabout will provide access either to
         the upper deck car park (at the same level as the store entrance) or onto the ramp
         to the lower deck (semi basement) car park. The lower deck will be exited by the
         above mentioned ramp.
   6.6   The service yard is situated on the eastern side of the proposed development
         (adjacent to Rowlands Hill) and will provide turning space for a delivery vehicle.
   6.7   Pedestrian access from Rowlands Hill is both by stairs and ramp, which crosses
         the service road to join the forecourt area between the car park and store. From
         Park Lane, a further pedestrian access is proposed by means of a 1 in 20 ramp,
         rising to a point close to the store entrance where there is also a flight of stairs
         from the open space. Within the open space itself, a cycleway link is proposed as
         well as additional footway provision. The applicants advise that they have secured
         a pedestrian access over the existing „Pippins‟ bridge in the north west corner of
         the site.

6.8    The planning application description as submitted does not include a new bridge
       link with the existing Crown Mead development on the other side of the River
       Allen. Nor to date, (despite requests) has there been any firm bridge proposals
       submitted or agreement from the Environment Agency about its suitability. There
       is however, an intention shown on the submitted plans for a potential bridge link
       and the applicants have undertaken, (and provision will be included in any
       proposed Section 106 Agreement), to use their best endeavours to provide such a
       bridge. If they are unable to do so, they will provide the Council with a capital sum
       to facilitate the bridge provision or use of the monies elsewhere in the Town.

Design and Appearance
6.9    The elevations of the building reflects the intention of the applicant to provide a
       clean, lightweight, modern building which has grown out of the concept of a
       „glazed pavilion‟ when seen from the proposed riverside park. The existing levels
       across the site rise gently from the River Allen to the toe of the current
       embankment adjacent to Rowlands Hill, the difference in levels being
       approximately 1.8 metres.
6.10   The one in 100 year floodplain contour is 18.2m OD and this in turn has informed
       the basement level. When viewed from the west (across the park), the glazed
       elevation will be seen arising approximately 2 metres above the ground level in
       the park. The finished floor of the store and upper car park level is 21.03 and the
       level at base of steps into the open space is 19.02. The car parking element will
       have a similar impact albeit partly screened with landscaping but the level at the
       foot of ramp‟s junction with Park Lane is 18.64, providing a difference of 2.3
       metres between it and the finished floor level.
6.11   The elevation towards Streets Meadow is part one and two storeys and, apart
       from one glazed element, will be largely brickwork banded by artificial stone with
       lightweight white panels as features above the brickwork. A screen detail at roof
       level separates the two storey element from the store building and provides a
       baffled screen to the external ducting and other equipment that supermarkets
       require to ventilate the store.
6.12   The two storey element (above the warehouse) is approximately 8.8m tall, whilst
       the retail store itself is a little shorter at 8m with a shallow pitched roof. In
       comparing the height of the proposed building and that of Streets Meadow, the
       two storey element will be approximately 1.2m taller to the ridge, but significantly
       in terms of the streetscape in Rowlands Hill, will be 2.9m taller to the eaves.
6.13   The space between the north elevation of the store and the boundary with Streets
       Meadow, varies in width between 12 metres at the north east corner and 30.5
       metres at the west end. A fence is shown to prevent public access to this
       landscaped area so that it simply provides a visual buffer between the two
       buildings. The overall length of the building along Streets Meadow is 69 metres.
6.14   The Rowlands Hill frontage requires the demolition and removal of the existing
       wall and railings to provide for the widening of the carriageway associated with the
       new roundabout junction. The two storey element closest to Streets Meadow is set
       at an angle and has an elevation at a tangent to Rowlands Hill 12 metres in
       length. This provides for a largely brick elevation with first floor windows providing
       light to the ancillary accommodation under a shallow pitched standing seam
       aluminium roof, in dark grey.
6.15   The service yard area will be sufficient to take one full sized articulated lorry at any
       one time (and in the event of planning permission being granted, there will be a
       Transport Plan to secure the way in which vehicles arrive and depart from the
       premises, to avoid congestion). Also within the service yard is a proposed sub-
          station, staff cycle rack, a stand-by generator and small scale waste facilities. The
          design concept of the building generally follows through in terms of the elevations
          to the yard area which is enclosed behind walling and gating. Due to the
          difference in levels, the upper part of the lorries in the service yard will be visible
          from Rowlands Hill and therefore the applicants in this context have sought to
          mitigate this impact by planting trees between the service yard and the new back
          edge of pavement in a strip approximately 3.8 metres deep. The access from the
          service yard into the warehouse is provided by a full height roller shutter door.
   6.16   The south elevation (towards the car park) of the main retail area is partly glazed
          and part brick with high level white panelling. From this elevation the effect of the
          low monopitch roof will be particularly apparent. Again, the roof will be dark grey
          standing seam aluminium. The lift tower from the basement area is provided as a
          feature forward of the south elevation, which will nevertheless still bring pedestrian
          users from the basement undercover due to the extent of the projecting roof area.
   6.17   Whilst most of the glazing is in relatively large panels, some smaller single panes
          have been introduced, on the south, east and west elevations which are to be
          inset and provided with artificial stone surrounds and provide interest to the
   6.18   External lighting is to be provided in accordance with a lighting design to achieve a
          safe night time environment for the general public and staff using the car park,
          pedestrian crossings, service yard and to the perimeter of the proposed
          development. The applicants have stated that there would be no upward light
          therefore limiting the sky glow effect and fitted with baffles to ensure no backwards
          light spill. The lamps will be time lock and photo-cell controlled.
   6.19   A full landscaping scheme has been submitted in support of the proposal which
          includes hedging on the Park Lane frontage close to the car park / ramp edge.
   6.20   A scale model of the proposal together with material samples have been
          submitted by the applicant and these will be available at the meeting.

7. Consultation
   7.1    The application was submitted in October 2007. Prior to this submission the
          applicant put forward several draft alternative proposals for a supermarket on this
          site and an initial proposal (Option 2) was the subject of a public exhibition held by
          Waitrose in December 2005. Waitrose held a further exhibition of its revised
          proposals at the Allendale Centre in December the following year.
   7.2    The application has been subject to extensive consultation procedures. In addition
          to the initial site notices, letter notification and press adverts (which all expired
          November 2007), your officers attended a number of evening and afternoon
          sessions at Allendale House, where the plans had been put on display, to assist
          members of the public in interpreting the information presented.
   7.3    Amended plans and revisions to the Environment Statement were submitted last
          month. Further consultation was carried out. This included the insertion of a press
          notice in the Echo, and Stour and Avon Magazine. Members of the public were
          advised that any representations received to date, would still be taken into
          account. This amended consultation period expired on the 8 September 2008.
   7.4    Representations received from statutory consultees and other groups are set out
          in full in appendix 5. However, a brief summary of the latest response made by
          these bodies, is set out below with the sub appendix reference in brackets.
          Wimborne Town Council: The Town Council is unable to comment on the
          application. (5.1)

County Highways: Now satisfied that all the outstanding highway issues have
been resolved and recommends conditional approval. (5.2)
Highways Agency: As above, but directs that specific conditions be attached to
any grant of planning permission. (5.3)
Environment Agency: Additional work undertaken for the Environmental
Statement is sufficient for them to withdraw their objection, subject to conditions
and informatives. (5.4)
English Heritage: Believe that there remains significant scope for improving the
quality of the proposals and their acceptability. In the absence of those
improvements and evidence why they cannot be achieved, they consider that
sufficient concern over the merits of the proposals still exist to make it difficult for
them to support the application and any decision of approval this Council may be
minded to consider. (5.5)
Natural England: Has no objection to the principle of the proposals and
welcomes the provision of open public space. However, they make comments in
relation to ecology and drainage. (5.6)
Wessex Water: make comments in relation to requirements for foul and surface
water drainage. (5.7)
Sport England: Wishes to support application provided the proposal is clearly
linked by either a planning condition or Section 106 Obligation to the provision of a
replacement facility at the Leaze, Wimborne, and that the replacement facility is
made available for use prior to the commencement of development at the existing
ground. (5.8)
County Archaeologist: No archaeological constraints. (5.9)
Dorset Wildlife Trust: (rec.27/08/08) Objected to original application due to lack
of mitigation or enhancement of the river and bankside habitat of the River Allen.
This has still not been addressed and therefore DWT continues to object to the
revised plans. (5.10)
Police Architectural Liaison Officer: Refers to issues on the need for
satisfactory standards of safety and crime prevention. (5.11)
Campaign to Protect Rural England: Objects to the proposed store, on loss of
green space; air quality; noise and light pollution and risk to the ecology of the
River Allen. (5.12)
Wimborne Minster & District Chamber of Trade: In summary they support the
proposal as they believe it will bring new life and increased trade to Wimborne, so
helping to retain the traditional character of the town centre and its individual
shops and businesses. (5.13)
Wimborne Civic Society: The Civic Society conclude that, having considered the
pros and cons of the Waitrose application, that it would be beneficial to the town of
Wimborne Minster, that it would on balance be neutral in relation to the
environment and that it should be supported. (5.14)
Keep Wimborne Town Green: Object. Loss of Open space; Question need for
the store and conclusions of Retail Impact Assessment; Contrary to planning
policy in respect of development within Conservation Area; loss of amenity; traffic
problems underestimated; pollution and drainage problems. (5.15)
Vision Wimborne: Overall impact on town good; possible net reduction in traffic;
slab like design and could be improved, riverside park attractive but could
increase litter. (5.16)

Individual representations
7.5   In addition to the above comments a considerable number of individual
      representations have been received. At the time this report was prepared, 450
      individual letters of support had been received. Conversely, 453 individual letters
      of objection have been received, together with 175 „petition‟ letters against the
7.6   The names and addresses of individual letters received (and whether they support
      or object to the proposal) are also set out in appendix 6. However the issues
      raised in the representations received are summarised below:
         Question the need for another supermarket
         Need the site pegged out to appreciate impact
         Potential chaotic traffic problems
         Need to retain „green land‟
         Contrary to Local Plan policies
         Need a public meeting
         Will bring Wimborne into 21 Century
         Public will have a lot more access to Open Space
         Spoil the traditional & picturesque look of historic town
         Should be out of town
         Lead to pollution
         Would be a mistake if allowed
         Devalue property
         Knock on effect against local shops
         Will bring customers to the town
         Will provide job opportunities
         Cricket club will be relocated to new premises
         Need for store that will supply top quality & choice of food
         Much needed asset to the town
         Wimborne dying on its feet
         Waitrose one of more „eco‟ aware of supermarkets
         Architectural design pleasing
         Town will benefit from more parking
         Rejuvenate the town
         Site divorced from town centre
         Traders will loose business
         Bridge needed
         Number of deliveries and lorry traffic concern
         Make existing store in Crown Mead obsolete
         Light and noise pollution

   Anti social behaviour will be encouraged
   Gridlock traffic with added concern for emergency vehicles
   Too far from town centre to shop elsewhere
   Alternative sites available
   Congestion and disturbance during construction
   Concern over provision for cyclists
   Concern over route for pedestrians and disabled access
   View from Streets Meadow and detrimental effect upon its residents, loss of
    light and disturbance
   Will create jobs
   Conversely, may put existing jobs under threat
   Who will look after open space?
   Possibility of future extension
   Need to protect Conservation Area
   Out of keeping with character of Wimborne
   Lead to high prices
   Position of pedestrian crossings and bus stops unacceptable
   Better site for store at Lake Gates
   Would materials be in keeping? Should they be more traditional?
   Doubts more trade will be generated for town
   Exhaust gases from u/ground car park, smell
   Inadequate disabled access
   Further loss of shops
   Council should take up open space
   Roundabout too close to other junctions, traffic jams
   Footbridge essential
   Need agreement for open space
   Boost to shops
   Flooding in basement, pumping required
   Treatment and storage of surface water
   Hours of working
   Parking in road increased
   Worst position in town
   Affordability
   Noise from refrigeration units
   Alterations of road layout will make access difficult to town
   Capacity of roads

            Loss of privacy from bus stops
            Spoil view, loss of sunlight
            Will avoid driving further a field
            C02 emissions
            Ground serves useful function in heavy rains-acts as sump
            Loss of flood plain
            Boost to local economy
            Could be built elsewhere-Allenview car park?
            Road arrangements outside home hazardous, noisy and effect quality of life
            Design. Overuse of glazing and mass of building.

8. Shopping and socio-economic considerations
   8.1   The Environmental Statement submitted by the applicant‟s agent is supported by
         a Retail Impact Analysis (RIA). The submissions have been made in line with the
         advice provided in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 – Planning for Town
         Centres (2005). This PPS is currently the subject of a consultation draft issued in
         July 2008 related to proposed changes in the Government advice, but given the
         nature of the submissions to date, there is nothing in the consultative draft that
         would undermine the work done by the applicants and, for that matter, the
         Council‟s own Retail Planning Consultants, Cushman and Wakefield, who have
         been requested to critically review the work that has been submitted and provide a
         conclusion for public consumption as part of this report.
   8.2   The Government‟s position is that town centres are crucial to creating sustainable
         communities. The introduction to PPS6 also makes the point that part of the
         Government‟s wider policy objectives are also relevant in so far as sustaining town
         centres would also promote social inclusion, create additional employment
         opportunities, promote economic growth of regional and sub-regional and sub-
         regional and local economies, deliver more sustainable patterns of development
         by ensuring that locations are fully exploited including reducing the need to travel,
         and by promoting high quality and inclusive design to improve the quality of the
         public realm.
   8.3   The Government rely on a plan-led proactive approach and it would have suited
         this Councils‟ planning role better if the current scheme could have been
         accommodated or rejected through the local development plan process.
         However, it is clearly not a scheme which by its very nature should be rejected as
         simply being “premature” and therefore it needs to be considered on its merits at
         the present time.
   8.4   The PPS asks local authorities, in selecting suitable sites for development, to
         ensure that the scale of opportunities identified are directly related to the role and
         function of the centre in its catchment. This in turn has been considered both by
         the applicants and by the Council‟s consultants. Equally, it requires that there
         should be a sequential approach to site selection. This means that all options in
         the centre (including where necessary the extension of the centre) should be
         thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered for development for
         main town centre uses. The sequential approach requires that locations are
         considered in an order which gives priority to those sites closest to the centre then
         looks at edge of centre locations and, lastly, those out of centre sites, with
         preferences given to those which are well served by a choice of means of

       transport. It requires consideration of the impact and makes the point that there
       may be both positive and negative impacts on existing centres. The positive
       benefits are likely to be strongest where additional development takes place in the
       centre or by an expansion of the centre.
8.5    The East Dorset Local Plan, Policies SHDEV1 and WIMCO5 both, in general
       terms support shopping development. The application site lies within both these
       policy areas as defined on the Proposals Map.
8.6    The instruction to Cushman and Wakefield, to act for East Dorset District Council
       in relation to retail aspects of the application, asked that a response was provided
       that would be for public consumption and their letter of 29 May 2008 is therefore
       appended. (See Appendix 4). The substance of the letter is a commentary on the
       RIA and the submissions made by the applicant‟s agent and the conclusions of
       the letter are self explanatory but worthy of some emphasis.
8.7    It will be noted that the recommendation is that the Council makes no objection to
       the proposal on retail grounds. Whilst there are some caveats about submissions
       made by the applicant, there is a need for more floor space. More over in terms of
       quality the appropriate response to this need is in the form of a single small to
       medium sized food store such as the application proposal.
8.8    It is recognised that the proposal will have a significant impact on Somerfield.
       That store could potentially cease trading. However, in terms of PPS6, the test of
       impact is the likely overall effect of the proposal on the centre as a whole and in
       this respect it is concluded that the proposed store would make a positive
       contribution to shopping in the Town.
8.9    In this context it is important to note that Somerfield have objected to the proposal
       and that the substance of their objection is in some large measure substantiated
       by the Council‟s consultants. However, there are quite large numbers of
       representations from members of the public, who comment that Wimborne would
       benefit from a new food store of the sort under consideration. This position is also
       supported by the Chamber of Trade.
8.10   The Council‟s consultants identify the ability to generate spin-offs for the town
       centre, based upon its relatively close proximity to it. If these are to be maximised
       it is important that the proposed new food store does have a direct link from
       Crown Mead over the River Allen to the new store. The applicants, in this context,
       have undertaken to use their best endeavours to provide a bridge link for
       pedestrian movement to and from Crown Mead. However, to date this has been
       thwarted by the freehold owners on the far side of the River Allen. The critique
       identifies that the number of small shops in direct competition with the new store
       will be comparatively small, although trade will be lost from these businesses.
8.11   The applicants own RIA advises:
       “Wimborne Town Centre is considered to be vital and viable and performing well.
       This is evidenced by low vacancy rates and increasing numbers of retailer
       requirements for representations in the Town”. (paragraph 5.27) Since this was
       written the position has not changed.
8.12   „Keep Wimborne Town Green‟ highlights the traffic information from the
       comparison made with the Romsey Waitrose where the average time a car
       spends in the car park at peak times is around three quarters of an hour thus
       casting doubt on linked shopping trips.
8.13   The Committee also needs to note that the joint Council scheme proposed for
       pedestrianisation of the Town Centre will give an uplift to the Town in its own right.

   8.14   Cushman and Wakefield also identify that the car parking element of the scheme
          should be brought under planning control in terms of a charging regime that is
          consistent with car parking generally through the town centre. The applicants
          have accepted this point as a matter of principle, and the heads of agreement in
          this respect in relation to a Section 106 have been agreed between Council
          officers and Waitrose‟s solicitors.
   8.15   The shop will provide for additional employment opportunities and its very
          presence may well provide for an uplift elsewhere in the Town‟s economic activity.

   Conclusion in relation to shopping matters
   8.16   The application proposal, on shopping grounds, as a matter of principle, has merit
          in this location.
   8.17   Wimborne Town Centre is vital and viable and performing well. Linked trips
          between the proposal and the Town Centre shops will require improved access
          arrangements to make these trips as attractive as possible.
   8.18   The importance of the proposed store, in balancing the material considerations, is
          limited by these factors.

9. Traffic, Revised Road Designs, Car Parking and the Travel Plan
   9.1    Part of the delay in bring the planning application to the Committee for
          consideration was further work required by the Highways Agency that followed on
          from the original submission in October 2007. The Highways Agency issued a
          “Holding Direction” pending the provision of further information because of
          concerns about the potential impact of the development on the A31 trunk road
          associated with the shift in balance of vehicular trips that currently visit other food
          stores in the area. The impact of construction traffic on the local and strategic
          network was also assessed.
   9.2    Following the establishment of an assessment methodology to determine the
          balance of impacts, it has been established that there would be a net reduction in
          traffic at the Canford Bottom roundabout and a slight increase at the Merley and
          Lambs Green roundabouts.
   9.3    In relation to construction traffic it is anticipated that the workforce on the site
          would be approximately 90 people at any one time. This, however, was only likely
          to be reached once the building envelope had been completed. Prior to that, the
          total construction workforce was unlikely to exceed 50 people. The average daily
          number of HGV delivery vehicle movements during the construction period is
          estimated to be approximately 10, however, this would be exceeded for a short
          period at the start of the construction work whilst surplus material is removed and
          bulk material associated with ground works delivered. During this period HGV
          movements are expected to be around 25 to 30 (two-way). The total two-way
          daily vehicle movements for a typical day during the peak construction period
          have, therefore, been estimated at 146 vehicle movements. The effect of
          construction traffic would be relatively small and short lived and it would not have
          a significant impact on junction capacity.

   Highway Impact on the Local Road Network
   9.4    The design of the new road junctions to service the site provides for a new mini
          roundabout with its centre set approximately in the position of the corner of the
          existing footway adjacent to the Cricket Ground wall, thus deflecting the main road
          flows west. The roundabout, being sited north of the Park Lane junction facilitates
          the existing one way traffic movement west along Park Lane. This new

        roundabout will enable main road flows to continue passing the site whilst
        providing dedicated turning lanes for entry into the propos ed car park. There will
        also be a dedicated service access. Bus stops will be relocated and the existing
        traffic lighted pedestrian crossing will be moved north along Rowlands Hill. Cycle
        lanes on Park Lane will be amended reflecting the new north/south cycle way
        through the proposed park.
9.5     Considerable work has been carried out by the consultants acting for Waitrose
        which has been reviewed by Dorset County Council as the Highway Authority.
        The agreed analysis shows that the peak hour trip rates for vehicles to and from
        the store are as follows:

        Proposed Development Peak Hour Trips

                                                          Trips (Vehicles)
                                      Arrivals            Departures         Two-Way

             Friday Evening             240                   268                 508

             Saturday Midday            200                   178                 378

9.6     For modes other than by car, trips are not likely to be significant in terms of traffic
9.7     Given this level of trip generation, the transport assessment has then gone on to
        consider the capacity at key junctions on the local road network in 2009 and 2012.
        The latter takes into account the likely increases in traffic growth in any event
        during the 2009 to 2012 period. The following changes in traffic at key junctions
        are set out in the following table:

        Percentage Change in Traffic at Key Junctions in Opening Year
          (2009) and Future Assessment Year (2012)

                                                   2009                          2012

      Ref.           Junction              Friday    Saturday           Friday      Saturday
                                          Evening     Midday           Evening      Midday
                                            Peak       Peak              Peak         Peak
       A          West Borough /           2.0%           1.5%           1.9%           1.4%
                     Priors Walk
       B          Hanham Road /            -1.8%          -1.7%          -1.7%          -1.7%
                Crown Mead (North)
       C          Allenview Road /         -0.1%          0.5%           -0.1%          0.4%
                   Hanham Road
       D           Rowlands Hill /         3.5%           2.8%           3.3%           2.7%
                   Hanham Road
       E           Proposed Site           21.0%          16.3%         20.1%           15.7%
       F        Lewens Lane / Leigh        7.1%           5.4%           6.8%           5.2%
                  Road / Rodway

       G   Stone Lane / Wimborne        2.1%          1.8%          2.0%         1.7%
            Road / West Borough

9.8    The Transport assessment then goes on to a detailed analysis of the impact on
       the increases in traffic associated with the proposal at each of these junctions. In
       summary, this analysis demonstrates that with one exception, the junctions that
       have been analysed will still be running within their design capacities. However,
       the Lewens Lane/Leigh Road/Rodway Corner junction, at the time of the base
       surveys in 2004, operated at or just at capacity during the Friday evening peak
       hour and within capacity in the Saturday mid-day peak hour. On the basis of the
       up-dated traffic growth figures in 2009 the junction would operate above capacity
       during the Friday evening peak hour and just above capacity during the Saturday
       mid-day peak hour and, therefore, without the development the analysis shows
       that the junction is already under pressure at peak times and that in 2012
       significant queuing would begin to occur. The impact of the Waitrose store would
       be to provide additional difficulties which would be likely to give rise to
       disproportionate queuing. To improve capacity and mitigate the impact of the
       development traffic at the roundabout, layout modifications have been agreed with
       Dorset County Council which revise the roundabout geometry. Subsequent
       computer analysis shows that the modifications would have the effect of bringing
       the roundabout back within operational capacity during Friday evening and
       Saturday mid-day peak hours even in 2012.
9.9    By 2017 analysis shows that without the development but with the modifications,
       the roundabout would operate slightly above capacity on one arm during the
       Friday evening peak hour and at capacity on one arm during the Saturday mid-day
       peak hour. With the development the position by 2017 is exacerbated to the
       extent that there will be a slight problem with over capacity on all the arms during
       the Friday evening peak hour and on two arms during the Saturday mid-day peak
       hour. Inherently, assessing traffic conditions in a future year almost a decade
       from now needs to be treated with caution. Nevertheless, it does indicate that
       compared with the existing geometry the alterations proposed to the layout would
       benefit the operation of the junction even at particularly busy times considerably
       into the future. Should planning permission be granted, the applicants have
       advised that they will be prepared to carry out these works to the specification of
       the Highway Authority.
9.10   The County Highway Authority raised with the applicant the policy constraint
       associated with Julian‟s bridge which identifies the need for traffic lights (East
       Dorset Local Plan Policy WIMCO21). The applicants have agreed to make a
       contribution to the scheme.

Car Parking
9.11   The proposed car park would provide 215 car spaces, 13 of which would be
       allocated for those with a mobility handicap. The combined national, county and
       local advice on car parking in relation to foodstores as set out in PPG13 Transport
       is to suggest a maximum of one space per 14 square metres of gross floor area.
       This would give rise to a potential maximum of 204 car spaces.
9.12   As the car park will be regarded by users as a “town centre” car park, there have
       been discussions with the applicants, without prejudice to the outcome of the
       application, to confirm that the car park will be subject to a management
       agreement so that it conforms to the Council‟s current charging policy and general
       management. The applicants would intend to refund customers who shop at the

9.13   The analysis of the accumulation of car parking activity carried out by the
       applicant‟s traffic consultants shows that a maximum of 127 cars would be in the
       car park on the Friday and a maximum of 139 cars would be in the car park on the
       Saturday, these being based upon trips entirely generated by the store. The
       applicants argue that there would be a significant benefit to parking in Wimborne
       by relieving the pressure in particular on the other short stay parking areas such
       as that provided by Somerfield and in the Square and High Street. The applicants
       have provided information for the duration of stay for a similar dual use town
       centre Waitrose car park in Romsey and the average length of stay is found to be
       47 minutes on a Friday and 44 minutes on a Saturday. This suggests that there
       would be a high turnover of spaces with spare spaces becoming free on a
       continual basis.
9.14   Following the initial submission the car park design has been revised to provide
       the roundabout internal to the car park with a longer queuing length back to the
       new proposed roundabout at the junction of Park Lane and Lewens Lane from
       Rowlands Hill.

The Service Yard and Deliveries
9.15   The proposed service yard is small and there has been discussion with Dorset
       County Council about the manoeuvrability of HGVs within it. It is advised that the
       philosophy behind deliveries is to provide fresh produce for each day‟s trading.
       The applicants state that deliveries to the Wimborne store will be likely to average
       around 30 each week with an average of five deliveries each week day and three
       deliveries each day at the weekend. The applicants recognise that goods
       deliveries need to be managed carefully and will be scheduled and spread
       throughout the day with a minimum of 45 minutes between each vehicle. The
       applicants are prepared to agree a servicing management plan for the store and
       for that to be enforceable by a planning condition. In exceptional circumstances,
       when there is no room in the service yard, drivers will be contacted, it is
       understood, by mobile telephone in advance and instructed to wait outside the
       built up area of Wimborne Minster until the unloading bay is available.
9.16   If, once the branch has been established, and there is demand a home delivery
       service may also be considered. It is advised this service would offer customers
       the opportunity to shop either online or in-branch where customers leave their
       bags at the checkout and have them delivered. The net effect of such home
       deliveries would be in effect to save both parking spaces and two-way vehicle trips
       and again the service would be part of the management agreement.
9.17   If Members were minded to grant planning permission for the proposal then
       Officers would be recommending that the latest delivery to the store arrives at no
       later than 10.30pm and the first delivery of the day arrives no earlier than 6.30am
       on any day of the week. In spite of this being a town centre location, your
       Council‟s Environmental Health Officers have received noise complaints in the
       town centre from late night deliveries of this sort and experience suggests that no
       matter how the undertakings are made about best practice, these are very difficult
       to enforce.

Cycling and Pedestrian arrangements
9.18   The proposal provides for cycle parking on site and the new open space will
       include a combined cycle/pedestrian way across it from Pippins Bridge to Park
       Lane. A number of representations have expressed concerns about pedestrian
       access to the store (setting aside the slightly different issue of accessibility
       generally to the Town Centre). Some residents living east and south of the site
       have criticised the scheme as it will be difficult to cross the main road at a traffic
       light protected crossing without travelling quite a long way north. There are also
       concerns about the legibility of the highway junction for both car and pedestrian
       users. These comments are well understood and have been discussed; Dorset
       County Highway officers are not able to support a further traffic lighted crossing on
       Lewens Lane. The pedestrian arrangements will need careful physical treatment
       to ensure the right visual cues. Those able bodied pedestrians seeking access
       from the Town Centre will use the new footpaths and steps.
9.19   The relocation of the traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing gives rise to a
       specific objection from the owner of Stoneleigh Rest Home, pointing out that it will
       require work to the trees on this frontage. In turn, crown lifting these trees will
       open up the secluded garden to view of part of the proposed building.
9.20   For users, not arriving by car, and due to disability require a ramped access, the
       ramp arrangements are close to the proposed pedestrian traffic lighted crossing
       on Rowlands Hill. However when approaching the store from Park Lane (and thus
       the Town Centre) due to the elevated nature of the building along the open space
       a 1:20 ramp is provided which travels 57 metres along the west face of the car
       park to the pedestrian forecourt, adjacent to the proposed steps down in to the
9.21   Concerns have been expressed about the location of the cycle racks, but these
       are adjacent to the store entrance and are satisfactory.

Travel Plan
9.22   The travel plan proposes a series of integrated measures to try to achieve a
       change in the perception of and encourage the use of alternative transport modes.
       The applicants will actively promote a “travel buddy” system for their employees t o
       find colleagues with whom others can walk or cycle at mutually agreed times and
       mutually agreed destinations and facilitate these objectives by providing discounts
       for cycles, additional individual lockers for those who cycle to work, loan bikes for
       those who wish to trial cycling to work, and providing additional information
       concerning cycle routes. The applicant company will also promote car sharing,
       actively liaise with local bus companies in relation to use of public transport, and
       encourage e-retailing and home delivery.

Conclusion on highway matters
9.23   The Highway Agency is satisfied about the impact of the new store in relation to
       the strategic highway network. Dorset County Council as the Local Highway
       Authority have agreed a package of measures which includes the redesign of the
       Leigh Road/Lewens Lane/Poole Road roundabout, and the design of the new
       roundabout junction at Park Lane/Lewens Lane/Rowlands Hill, such that they are
       satisfied generally in relation to highway safety and congestion. The capacity of
       the car park is considered to be satisfactory and the arrangements for making
       HGV deliveries are understood and accepted. Officers would not recommend a
       refusal of planning permission in relation to traffic congestion or danger, although
       it remains one of the main concerns identified by numbers of objectors to the
       scheme. The objection from Stoneleigh Rest Home concerning the relocation of
       the pedestrian crossing is understood, but is considered not so harmful as to
       warrant a reason for refusal. If planning permission is to be granted then a
       number of planning conditions relating to the highway matters and parts of the
       legal agreement would need to consider:

          Section 106 head of agreement in relation to car park management

             Section 278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980 for the offsite works to
              Rodways Corner, revised works to the highway, re-siting of the pedestrian
              traffic crossing etc.
             Section 106 head of agreement for the travel plan
             Section 106 head of agreement for a contribution to the traffic light control at
              Julian‟s Bridge
             Planning condition to limit delivery hours
             Planning condition to ensure car park and access, including those across the
              park, are built before the store first opens and are thence retained.
             Temporary car park for construction period.

          In the event of refusal, the recommendation is to include a reason based on the
          need to be able to control and manage the car park.

10. The impact on amenity in respect of the existing residential properties adjacent to
    the site including Stoneleigh Rest Home at 2 Rowlands Hill and Streets Meadow
   10.1   The Committee will note that there are a number of policies which protect the
          amenities of existing properties. It is necessary to point out that the policies
          express the amenity protection in slightly different ways. DES8 requires that
          schemes are compatible with or improve their surroundings and then provides a
          checklist which is familiar to Members. SHDEV1, which refers specifically to the
          development of shops in town centres, requires that the development does not
          result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby properties. WIMCO5
          requires development not to be detrimental to amenities of residential properties.
          The policies, on the whole, seek to make the position neutral or better. (Please
          note that SHDEV1 and WIMCO5 are in Section 8 of Appendix 1).

   Visual Amenities
   10.2   Members will be familiar with the concept that there is no right in planning to a
          view. This is fundamental in the current case as a number of private properties
          and two elderly persons‟ care homes have views across the cricket pitch. The
          applicant‟s agents have carried out a visual effects assessment in the submitted
          environmental statement. The findings in part advise:
          “Visual receptors where it is considered there would be a moderate adverse effect
          at year 15 (i.e. after the landscaping has had the opportunity to mature) include
          properties on Park Lane (Nos.22 -32), those on Rowlands Hill 2 (which is the
          Stoneleigh Rest Home) and 4A, and Streets Meadow Care Home. This effect is
          the result of the loss of the existing view over open green space which, whilst
          offset by robust landscaping proposals around the open space and car park,
          including semi-mature trees and Beech hedge planting, represents a significant
          moderate adverse effect for these properties. This adverse visual effect at year
          15 is considered to relate to 8 individual residences in total and the Streets
          Meadow Care Home.” (Paragraph 9.84)
   10.3   Moving this applicant‟s statement on to a logical conclusion, careful consideration
          needs to be given as to whether or not an adverse visual effect based on view is
          co-incidental with visual harm to the amenity of the occupants of these buildings.
          The Officer conclusion is that it is not the same. An argument can certainly be put
          forward that says the creation of embanked car parking structure, some 28 metres
          from the fronts of properties in Park Lane, may conflict with the policies. However,
          it is concluded that this is actually difficult to substantiate given the nature of the
          landscaping that is proposed, even though lighting and activity will sit above it.

10.4   4A Rowlands Hill is opposite the new building, and not the car park, and will have
       the main road as separation. At ground floor the rest home rear garden at 2
       Rowlands Hill, will have glimpsed views of the building (in the area of the loading
       bay and upper floor) and these will be more exposed by the need to crown lift
       trees to permit the lights for the new pedestrian crossing. Walking up the driveway
       of 2 Rowlands Hill, towards the road, the proposed car park will become obvious
       on the other side of the road as the levels of the upper car park deck and entrance
       to the site are approximately at street level here, but at present the view is of a
       wall and railing. At first floor and above the vista will change from this building.
       The proposed open space in the middle distance will be seen with the Minster
       rising above the CDA, the near views will be of the building and its car park.
10.5   1 Lewens Lane has a ground floor living room window looking out towards Park
       Lane and across Lewens Lane but the main orientation of the dwelling is north
       south, with its garden to the north. There is a similar view across from the first
       floor bedroom window.
10.6   The building to building distance proposed between the rear elevation of Streets
       Meadow and the flank elevation of the proposed supermarket is between 18 and
       35 metres. The space between will essentially be one filled with landscape.
       Streets Meadow clearly “borrows” amenity from the cricket ground at present with
       some of its communal windows looking straight out past the Pavilion and related
       buildings and across the pitch. However, there was no reason, at the time that the
       planning application for this comparatively recent building was considered, to
       believe that the cricket pitch would be left in perpetuity and consideration needs to
       concentrate on whether or not the proposals to landscape up to the flank wall of
       the supermarket makes the amenity acceptable. On balance, your Officers would
       not support a refusal on this particular matter.
Noise and Vibration
10.7   The noise impacts fall to be considered in relation to construction, traffic including
       deliveries once the store is open, associated noise due to loading and unloading,
       car doors slamming or cars and lorries starting; and the movement of trolleys and
       people. There is also noise from the mechanical services plant. The applicant‟s
       environmental statement addresses all of these issues against the background of
       the policy base in PPG24 which in turn is similar to Local Plan Policy DES2 in that
       the notion is one of impact avoidance with unacceptable noise impacts being
       inappropriate. The applicants have surveyed noise and provide an analysis based
       upon base line conditions before going to look at the likely significant effects.
10.8   During the construction phase it is accepted that some noise from construction
       activity will be noticeable. If the Committee were minded to grant permission then
       the appropriate way forward would be to require a more detailed analysis and
       control of noise during construction by way of condition. The consultant acting in
       this instance recommends that building work is limited to 0800 to 1800 weekdays,
       0800 to 1300 on Saturdays and no Sunday working.
10.9   Once operational, the noise from car parking, lorry parking and the associated
       activity will be heard and some of the sounds do not readily lend themselves to
       easy assessment by noise monitoring.           Surveys of general noise levels
       demonstrate acceptable impacts. The problems are likely to arise with intermittent
       high impact sounds which may be unacceptable at quiet times. Again, it will be
       necessary to agree an hours of operation for both public access to the car park
       and lorry delivery to ensure that undue harm is avoided.

   10.10 Whilst increased traffic at the new junction as now proposed, may provide more
         traffic for longer periods of time, the survey suggests that the increase in noise
         would still be within acceptable limits.
   10.11 The only concern expressed by your Council‟s Pollution Control Manager in the
         Public Health Services relates to fixed plant and machinery. Advice is provided
          “In the report, the design criteria for noise appears to be assessed with a rating
          level of plus 5Db in accordance with BS4142 and references made to this level
          being negligible. At a rating level of plus 5Db the likelihood of complaints is
          considered to be marginal not negligible. A rating level of minus 10Db is
          considered to be a positive indication that complaints will not be received. I do not
          consider, therefore, given that this is a new build project that plus 5Db is a suitable
          criteria. I would rather that a design criteria of a rating level of minus 10Db is
          sought to be achieved and that only where it can be evidenced that this is not
          possible should a lesser level be permitted and then only after consultation with
          this Division.”
   10.12 As the plant is on the roof immediately to the rear of the office element of the
         proposal, it is reasonably close to the Streets Meadow building. Under these
         circumstances, if Members were minded to grant planning permission, then a
         condition would be recommended to deal with this matter.
   10.13 The applicants have submitted a detailed lighting assessment based upon the
         current proposals. The lighting of supermarkets generally is well understood and
         avoidance of light spill is part of the submission (Members may recall that the
         Sainsbury‟s at Ferndown won an award in this context). There will naturally be
         additional light coming from the car park area and from the store itself. However,
         the design of the proposals will be such that there should be no conflict with
   10.14 (This is not the same as the characterisation of the site with darkness as an
         important night time attribute in relation to its inherent landscape and conservation
   Dust, Air Quality and Smells
   10.15 All of these matters have been considered as part of the environmental statement
         and there is no reason to believe these cannot be properly managed.
   Conclusion in Relation to Amenity Impacts
   10.16 There are no matters which, in your Officer‟s view, will give rise to a reason for
         refusal. The views of perimeter occupiers will be poorer but this is not quite the
         same, in your officers‟ opinion as true amenity detriment. However, to some extent
         this remains subjective, therefore, the Committee will need to carefully consider
         the impacts particularly with regard to visual amenity.

11. The Assessment of the Store in its context within the Conservation Area
   11.1   The new emerging policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy provide an emphasis
          on the characterisation process which is concerned with a methodology provided
          by English Heritage. Characterisation has been defined as a:
           „tool for examining a place to identify its essential qualities and character. It helps
          to build an understanding of a settlement or area‟s historic environment including
          its topography, landscape setting, archaeology, architecture, spaces and design
          features. An understanding of how these elements manifest themselves should

       help inform the process of sustainably managing change, helping to enhance local
       characteristics instead of undermining them‟. (RSS)
11.2   For this reason a characterisation of the area has been prepared and is to be
       found at Appendix 2. The RSS policies ENV1 and ENV5 offer protection to the
       historic environment following on from the National advice in the PPG15.
11.3   From that part of Appendix 1 dealing with the policies in relation to Historic
       Environment the Committee will see that Section 72 of the Planning Act places the
       Council in a position where the objective of preserving or enhancing the character
       or appearance of the Conservation Area is a high priority and that over riding
       these objectives should be an exception contemplated only when there is some
       development which is desirable on the grounds of some other public interest.
11.4   Prior to the formal submission the applicants and the Council made a presentation
       in December 2006 to the South West Regional Design Panel with the scheme that
       had been prepared at that time. The Panel had no objection of principle to the
       development of part of the cricket pitch in much the same way as English Heritage
       has commented since. (See Appendix 5 (5)). The Panel gave some pointers to the
       direction of the scheme some of which have been accommodated and others
       which have not. Seeking this advice rather than that of the local Architects Panel
       and the subsequent instruction of the Council‟s design consultant Robert Nother,
       was considered to be the appropriate way forward in giving the Council a „fresh
       pair of eyes‟ in the analysis of the scheme.
11.5   The Council instructed Mr Nother to give the design appraisal in the context of the
       Conservation Area. His advice is set out in full at Appendix 3. The applicants
       appraisal of the site in this context identifies some negative effects but that the
       scheme has a neutral impact overall. Your officers cannot agree with this position
       and neither does English Heritage. Robert Nother, in part, advises:
       “The large size of the proposed retail store together with its attendant car parking
       structure and servicing area in relation to the site as a whole makes it extremely
       difficult to establish a successful pavilion theme conforming to the above criteria.
       The car parking provision as arranged prevents the achievement of a consistent
       parkland appearance over the site. This is due in part to the need to provide a
       large amount of parking at surface level and in part to the projection above the
       natural ground levels of the underground car park. The surface parking on a
       raised level necessitates the provision of guarding, lighting etc, and, with its
       extensive horizontal surface and the steep gradient of the banking around its
       perimeter, is likely to give rise to an engineered appearance which will detract
       from the visual fluency of the open space. Even with no visible car parking
       structure I believe that the proposed building would appear disproportionately
       large within the space due to its size and amount of ground coverage. It would
       appear dominant rather than subservient within the space.
11.6   Usually, modern foodstores of this type are inward looking and largely free of
       extensive glazed areas in order to maximise the available wall space for storage
       and display of goods. This presents a difficulty here in enabling sufficient full
       height glazing to contribute to an apparent lightness and transparency of the
       building. As designed initially its apparent large bulk was exacerbated by its
       articulation and treatment of its elevations, which included extensive unrelieved
       areas of cladding panels. The amended elevations shown on the August 2008
       submission go some way towards easing this concern through including increased
       areas of glazing and a modified arrangement of the lightweight cladding materials.
       The extensive surface area of the cladding is relieved to an extent in the revised
       design, particularly on the north elevation, by brickwork panelling set between
       projecting brickwork piers. However, this arrangement is still unlikely to reduce

          sufficiently the appearance of solidity and apparent bulk of the building. It needs to
          be borne in mind that much of the glazing is not providing window area as it is
          backed by opaque panelling. While in certain lighting conditions it may provide a
          degree of reflectivity and lightness, it is doubtful whether it will add substantially to
          the apparent transparency of the building and thereby reduce its appearance of
   11.7   The elevations as shown I believe would result in a conflict in scale with the
          existing residential buildings nearby. There is a gesture towards a domestic
          appearance in the treatment of the warehouse block, but as indicated later, this
          puts it at odds with the design of the rest of the building. I contend that this conflict
          in scale is due in part to the large size of the building and in part to the size,
          proportion and arrangement of the cladding and glazing. In my opinion the result
          would be a building which is overbearing in its setting and detracts from the
          special character of the conservation area.
   11.8   I have deep reservations about the prospect of any elevational treatment enabling
          a building of such size, shape and location to avoid appearing incongruous and
          overbearing in this particular context. The degree of transparency necessary to
          afford it sufficient visual lightness inevitably would be in conflict with the building‟s
          functional requirements. Concerning its proposed location, the landscaped areas
          to the north and east of the proposed building are relatively small and are of an
          indeterminate shape. They neither contribute to the achievement of a stand-alone
          pavilion type building set within parkland nor match the arrangement of nearby
          traditional and historic buildings in terms of their frontages addressing the street.”
   11.9   There is no doubt in your officers‟ view that the proposal will harm the
          Conservation Area. The Committee will therefore need to consider whether or not
          there are any material considerations so compelling as to set this harm to one

12. Flood Risk, Surface Water Disposal and Pollution Control
   12.1   With regard to flood risk the Committee will recall other sites where the advice in
          Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk and the associated
          local policies have been reviewed.
   12.2   The applicant‟s flood risk assessment and the advice from the Environment
          Agency all confirm that a major part of this land lies within the River Allen flood
          plain (one in one hundred years) and that the 1% probability flood level is 18.19
          metres AOD (including an allowance for climate change).
   12.3   The building and car park are to the east of the 18.19 metre contour and this has
          also had an implication on the setting of the basement floor level.
   12.4   With regard to surface water drainage, the whole of the site is effectively at
          present a “green field”. After the development approximately 40% of the site will
          still remain as such.
   12.5   The methodology followed by the land drainage consultants is to try to mimic the
          green field run off as occurs at present by the collection of the surface water from
          the proposed hard surfaces, its containment in large artificial tanks (beneath the
          service yard) and before it is allowed to discharge to the River Allen interceptors,
          designed for the purpose, will remove pollutants and the flows will be moderated.
          This scheme has been largely redesigned following criticism of the initial
          application submission. If the Committee are minded to grant permission there
          will be a requirement by condition and agreement to deal with this issue.
   12.6   The Environment Agency and your own officers still have some reservations about
          this concept. It does not entirely meet best advice on moderating and cleansing
          surface water and it does not meet the best practice in the Council‟s own
          Supplementary Planning Guidance. Preference would be for a surface designed
          pond structure to capture the water and to further improve pollution control by
          running the discharge through, for example a reed bed and ditch. However, with
          space at a premium in the scheme, it is concluded that the proposal will
          technically work. Certainly your officers are not recommending refusal on this
          issue and nor is the Environment Agency.
   12.7   Potentially, there is a higher risk from pollution during the construction phase and
          the Environment Agency are also concerned not to obstruct the flood plain with
          material storage including excavated material as loss of capacity to the River Allen
          in times of flood could have adverse downstream implications.
   12.8   There has been a period of monitoring the ground water movements across the
          site which appear to move diagonally towards the River Allen broadly in line with
          the historic contour of the land. The ground conditions on the site appear to be
          mixture of clay and gravels with significant permeability such that the surface
          water at present appears to contribute to summer flows of the River Allen. The
          levels of this ground water appear to have determined the basement foundations
          such that any impact on the existing flows are to be minimised.
   12.9   Wessex Water advise that there is an existing sewer running across the site
          north/south in the area of proposed open space. It is anticipated that foul water
          flows can be accommodated without difficulty. However, the design of the sewer
          will need to take account of the potential for surface water infiltration during times
          of flood.
   12.10 At this stage the scheme has not dealt with the detail of grey water harvesting and
         water efficiency measures, both of these are raised by the Environment Agency as
         part of their comments by letter dated 2 September which also deals with the
         above matters.
   12.11 If Members were minded to grant planning permission then the following points
         would need to be accommodated in terms of legal agreement and planning
             Section 106 Agreement head – To require the regular cleansing of the surface
              water interceptors. Planning condition to deal with further details of the surface
              water balancing measures.
             Planning condition to deal with grey water harvesting and water efficiency
             As part of the building construction management plan to ensure no materials
              are stored in the flood plain and that there are anti-pollution measures
              undertaken (such as the bunding of temporary diesel tanks etc).

13. Open Space and Recreation
   13.1   The planning application site is zoned as open space. The national policies
          providing the Government‟s position are in PPG 17 – Planning for Open Space
          Sport and Recreation (2002). Environment Policy I of the Structure Plan, together
          with its supporting text, and the Council‟s own policy RCDEV1 identify three
          distinct matters to consider. The first is that generally there is a planning
          prohibition on the loss of open spaces which have a recreational quality as in the
          current case. Secondly and notwithstanding this generality there may be
          occasions when the loss of the open space may be justified because there is no
          need to retain the recreational or amenity use of the land or there will be no overall
          net loss of recreational benefit by its development.

13.2   Last is the concept laid out in Structure Plan Policy I which is that some open
       spaces and parks have a quality which contributes to the environment which is
       distinct from simply the recreational value of the land. This is a theme generally
       picked up in emerging RSS policy too.
13.3   In this case there is an overlapping and related consideration between the
       environmental quality of this recreational space and also its value within the
       conservation area. In some respects the two are linked but it is also the
       environmental quality of the open space in this case that is obvious and more
       apparent in some respects. A visitor to the town, unaware of the conservation
       area designation may nevertheless stop and admire the green space the subject
       of this planning application. It inevitably cannot be divorced, however, from its use
       for without the care provided by generations of groundsmen it would not be as
       valued as it is today particularly by the many people who have written in to object
       to its loss on those terms. The position might become very different if it fell into
       disuse and simply became a vacant piece of ground with all the potential inherent
       difficulties associated with a lack of maintenance.
13.4   It is therefore fair to conclude, that in the current case, the value of this piece of
       open space is heightened considerably by its current active use as a cricket
       ground. Indeed, it could be argued that the quintessential Englishness of a cricket
       ground raises it above any other visual quality of other active open space.
13.5   Given that the policies admit the possibility, in certain circumstances, of not
       protecting the open space it is therefore necessary to consider whether or not the
       tests in the policies are met.
13.6   In the current case because the cricket ground is to be re-provided at The Leaze
       in accordance with the planning permission granted (Council reference
       3/07/0221/COU) issued in July 2007 there would be no overall net loss of
       recreational benefit by its development. The alternative site is potentially good for
       playing cricket and will have the benefit of a new pavilion and other related
       infrastructure. In addition, in the current case, the applicants are also intending to
       provide approximately 40% of this site as a new open space (ignoring the possible
       bridge footprint) over which the public will have access. Mathematically, it can
       therefore be argued that there will be an increase in open space, some of which
       will be effectively public open space. Whilst this may not have the same qualitative
       value because it will be caught between the new supermarket building and car
       park on the one hand, and the trees along the River Allen with the flank walls of
       the Crown Mead beyond, it nevertheless will, if laid out appropriately, have a
       positive benefit. Sport England, as the statutory consultee on recreational open
       space raise no objection and support the scheme to relocate the cricket pitch.
13.7   The landscaping proposals for the new park are not particularly inventive, but
       satisfactory, and the applicant has been risk averse to suggestions about the
       introduction of play equipment. If the proposed bridge link were to be constructed
       it would alter the perception of the park by its introduction, and the associated
       landscape would also require a remodelling.
13.8   The waterside will need protection from the public to safeguard the inherent high
       biodiversity value of this length of chalk stream – so it will not be a place to feed
       the ducks!
Concluding remarks in relation to the loss of open space
13.9   Some of the objectors give this cricket pitch almost iconic status. However, given
       the nature of the policies relating to recreational use it is not recommended that
       reasons for refusal relate to its loss as a recreational area as contrary to the

          advice in PPG 17 or RCDEV 1 (except in a technical sense in so far as it would
          need a Section 106 Agreement as a pre-requisite).
   13.10 However, the loss of the cricket pitch as a piece of open space in its current form
         will detract from the character of the town and its associated quality of life.
         Structure Plan Policy Environment Policy I gives an absolute clarity of direction in
         its first sentence.
          “Within the urban areas, parks and other open spaces which contribute to the
          quality of the environment should be protected from development.”
   13.11 When combined with ENV1 and ENV5 of the RSS steer the decision maker
         inevitably to protection. A reason for refusal is drafted accordingly. However, the
         matter of the balance of the decision is stressed in the concluding remarks to this
   13.12 Therefore if the Planning Committee are minded to grant permission for the
         development then the following matters need to be dealt with by legal agreement
         and planning condition.
             Section 106 Agreement to require the development of the new cricket ground
              at The Leaze and its future retention. The timing of the construction to ensure
              that there is no loss of a playing season.
             The proposed open space will be retained as a park in perpetuity.
             The landscaping proposals for the park to be remodelled in accordance with a
              new scheme should the bridge across the River Allen, be constructed. All
              works to be carried out at the applicant‟s expense.
             Planning condition to require the landscaping proposals shown as part of the
              scheme to be properly implemented.

14. The Site Ecology, Nature Conservation Requirements, including the perimeter
   14.1   The thrust of the appended policies in relation to nature conservation protect and
          enhance natural habitats, and in this case the River Allen and its corridor. In
          addition the policies seek to protect flora and fauna and the degree of protection
          largely reflects the scarcity of the species. A full ecological study, which has been
          revised in the light of concerns and objections expressed by the nature
          conservation bodies, has been submitted by the applicants as part of the
          environmental statement.
   14.2   One of the issues that has emerged as a result of the negotiations is the tension
          between the use of the proposed open space as a “riverside” recreational area
          and the River Allen‟s high importance as a habitat. The position taken by your
          officers, and to some extent, the scheme now before the Council is one where the
          ecology of the Allen, including the river bank within the application site, has the
          priority over the use by the local human population. It will therefore need to be
          managed to ensure the bank side is not accessible by people or dogs; and the
          vegetation, including the row of existing alders that are a feature when seen from
          Crown Mead, are managed to maximise the biological diversity of the river in
          broad accordance with the River Allen management plan.
   14.3   Chalk streams are a Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat. The River Allen is
          only one of four known to still hold a viable population of native white clawed
          crayfish, which are statutorily protected. The river corridor, of which the bank and
          the river itself along the edge of the application site is an important part is also in
          use by migratory fish, otters (which are known to regularly traverse the Allen side

          stream at Walford Mill) and kingfishers. The ecology of the river on this stretch
          can be improved by sensitive management.
   14.4   The absence of clear management principles has given rise to a letter of concerns
          expressed by English Nature dated 18 December 2007, reservations by the
          Environments Agency to the original scheme, and an objection from Dorset
          Wildlife Trust dated 27 August 2008 to the revised proposals. In turn at this time
          there is a recommended reason fro refusal on this basis (It should be noted
          however that this could be overcome by negotiation and a suitable head of a legal
   14.5   Away from the river corridor surveys have failed to find subjects of any real
          ecological value although some diversity is accorded to the damp ditch adjacent to
          the Streets Meadow boundary.
   14.6   Offers made in the submission include a full manual of construction practice, tree
          protection in accordance with BS5837:2005, a buffer zone of four metres adjacent
          to the northern boundary associated with the ditch, and as a result of the very
          recent continued opposition by the Dorset Wildlife Trust and the concerns
          expressed by the Environment Agency, further offers to deal with the management
          of the River Allen‟s bank. In this respect, a pond is shown on the submissions but
          in practice this will not now be constructed in favour of other ecologically sensitive
          handling of the site. In addition, proposals have been submitted for bat and bird
          boxes to be integrated into the scheme.
   14.7   Therefore, if the Planning Committee are minded to grant planning permission
          planning conditions would be required to deal with the following:-
             A full manual of construction practice to protect the River Allen
             A Tree Protection Methodology in accordance with BS5837:2005
             To agree a specification for the installation of bat and bird boxes
             A preliminary detailed management plan for the River Allen‟s bank and this
              would need to be amplified as it would be a permanent management
              arrangement (and therefore incapable of being satisfactorily implemented by
              planning condition) as part of the Section 106 Agreement.

15. Archaeology
   15.1   The Committee will be familiar with the advice contained in Planning Policy
          Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning and Related Planning Policy.
          Although the planning application site is close to the historic centre of Wimborne
          the Environmental Statement prepared by the applicants demonstrates that it is
          most unlikely that there is any archaeological value to that part of the site which
          will be the subject of the building and highway works.
   15.2   Prior to the formation of the cricket ground the site sloped uphill and has been
          truncated from the original ground surface by up to 3 metres to create the playable
          cricket pitch. There are no scheduled ancient monuments or nearby finds from
          recent redevelopments to suggest the site has any particular archaeological value.
   15.3   It is not envisaged, that if planning permission were to be granted, any mitigation
          or enhancement measures would be required or any particular monitoring by way
          of planning condition.

16. Renewable Energy
   16.1   As identified in Appendix 1 the RSS modifications provide for a new policy RE5.

   16.2   The Government published advice in PPS 22 on renewable energy. The RSS has
          provided a new Policy RE5 which requires Development Plan Documents to set
          targets for renewable energy. It goes on to advise:
   16.3   In the interim, before targets are set in DPDs, at least 10% of the energy to
          be used in new development of more than 10 dwellings or 1000m2 of non-
          residential floorspace should come from decentralised and renewable or
          low-carbon sources, unless, having regard to the type of development
          involved and its design, this is not feasible or viable.
   16.4   This was adopted by the Council only very recently as emerging policy and thus
          post dates the main negotiations with the applicant. It is likely the applicant could
          provide revised details to meet this requirement. However for the present it
          provides a basis for a refusal reason with an invitation to negotiate away the
          reason in the event of an appeal.

17. The Package Offered by the Applicant
   17.1   For clarity the package offered to date which has been discussed and will require
          a Section 106 Agreement as a pre-requisite is as follows:

             A new cricket pitch, with facilities, at the Leaze to be operational so that no
              season of cricket is missed and with a long lease arrangement in favour of the
             A new open space next to the River Allen between it and the supermarket and
              for it to be maintained by the applicant.
             Best endeavours to secure a pedestrian bridge and if it fails within five years of
              the permission, in the alternative £150,000 for the Council to spend on projects
              in the Town.
             A capital sum of £150,000 for the Council to assist in capital works in
              Wimborne to improve the public realm.
             To recast the open space landscaping if the bridge is constructed.
             A revised roundabout design at the applicants expense at Rodways Corner and
              other related offsite highway works (which will also need an agreement under
              s278 of the Highways Act).
             A contribution of £20,000 to the proposed traffic light improvements (in
              accordance with the Local Plan policy) at Julians Bridge.
             The car park to be managed as a Town Centre car park under Council control
             A travel plan – to deal with a number of matters including lorry routing.

   17.2   In addition your officers would want to add as a result of recent advice from those
          concerned with nature conservation:

             The undertaking concerning the future cleansing of the surface water
              interceptors – including a management regime.
             The future management of the bankside of the River Allen and the Allen itself to
              maximise its biodiversity.

18. Conclusions
   18.1   The Committee have a difficult decision to make. There is a need to take into
          account a wide range of policies, some of which set up tensions to pull the
          decision maker in opposing directions.
   18.2    Matters are made no easier by the very recent arrival of the RSS modifications
          and the emerging policies which will take over from the Structure Plan policies at

       the point at which the final version of that document is confirmed. There are also a
       number of statutory consultees‟ responses to consider and the advice from both
       shopping and architectural design consultants appointed by the Council.
18.3   Members are recommended not to regard the proposal as premature in advance
       of the Local Development Framework.
18.4   No material weight can be given to the applicant‟s name – it would not be
       reasonable to grant a personal permission in this instance. Members are
       considering a supermarket.
18.5   The applicants proceeded with the proposal only once they concluded that there
       was support for the proposal as a result of their initial public consultation. The
       Council has received more individual letters about this proposal than for any other,
       and this only serves to emphasise the difficulty of the task as the response shows
       that the community is split.
18.6   In summarising the issues of greatest materiality it is concluded that:

          Defence of the cricket ground as a piece of recreational open space is not
           recommended. In this context the offer to provide the new pitch and the
           residual open space over which the public will have access is by key material
           consideration. (The safeguarding reason for refusal reflects the absence of a
           signed legal agreement).
          The existing site has quality as an open space which contributes to the town‟s
           character and local distinctiveness. As the site lies in a Conservation Area the
           support for protection of this space requires special consideration as a matter
           of law under section 72 of the Planning Act.
          There is a benefit in providing additional shopping floorspace both in quantity
           and quality; this will provide other socio-economic benefits in employment and
           may well add to the general vibrancy of the Town.
          The Town at this time, in shopping terms, is vital and vibrant it does not have
           many empty shops, and civic improvement in the Town is likely to arise from
           the pedestrianisation scheme proposed for implementation in 2009/10.
          The proposed scheme may lead to the closure of the Somerfield store. Other
           shops (butcher, baker, fishmonger, green grocer and off-licence) will face more
           competition as the proposal is for a food store, but these small shops do not
           make up a significant amount of the existing retail floorspace in the Town.
          The proposed car park will also act as an additional Town short stay car park. A
           comparison with the applicant‟s store in Romsey shows the average car park
           stay is about three-quarters of an hour.
          The application does not include a pedestrian bridge link across the R Allen.
           However the applicants promise to try to provide one after the grant of planning
           permission. (At the time of writing the report officers have not seen a design).
           Its delivery, however, is uncertain.
          The Highways Agency and the County, as Local Highway Authority, do not
           oppose the scheme.
          The scheme is capable of disposing of surface water and foul water
           satisfactorily provided there is an obligation to continuously manage the
           cleansing of the surface water interceptors.
          The habitat of the River Allen needs to be managed and improved. It is
           concluded the applicants would need to revise their proposals (and re-caste
           some of the proposed landscaping) to meet policy in this respect.
          The building as submitted does not demonstrate the requirement to meet the
           RSS Policy RE5 on renewable energy.

18.7   The Concept of building a pavilion in the park is a worthy aim. If the development
       proposed had convinced your officers, the consultant the Council has instructed to
       act on the design appraisal, and English Heritage that this aim had been achieved
       then the recommendation would have been different. The applicant has been
       negotiating this scheme with your officers for some time. However, even before
       the formal submission it was apparent that the very scale of the building, the
       engineered nature of the access and car park and the raising of the car park upper
       deck and shop floor significantly above the ground level as seen from the
       proposed park pointed heavily to the fact that the proposal is not a pavilion in a
       park. It is a shop, with a two deck car park and perimeter landscaping. Its design
       is satisfactory as a supermarket building, but there are concerns at the most basic
       level about context, for example its dominant appearance when seen from both
       Rowlands Hill and the new open space. It requires the widening of Rowlands Hill
       and a new roundabout. It provides for open space between the building and the
       River Allen. It is not linked across the River Allen by a new bridge but it does
       provide the opportunity for a new cricket pitch at the Leaze. The balance of the
       package set out above is insufficient, in your officers‟ view, to overcome the
       concerns about the adverse impact of the building in the Conservation Area and
       the loss of the inherent quality of the open space provided by the cricket pitch as it
       is today by way of mitigation.
18.8   There is no doubt about the harm to the conservation area and the difference
       between your officers and the applicant is whether or not that can be successfully
       mitigated by the proposal. The applicant says:
        “There is a clear imperative for a new food store which can only be met on the
       application site. The design and layout of the foodstore and car parking is the best
       achievable taking into account the physical and technical constraints of the site
       and the operational needs of a foodstore, and the resulting change to the
       character and appearance of the conservation area is acceptable given the
       planning gain that will be delivered by the Waitrose planning package.”
18.9   The advice on Conservation Area decision making suggests that this approach is
       flawed. The Committee are however, perfectly able to follow a route which says
       that the harm to the Conservation Area is recognised but the benefit the store and
       the associated package will bring to the Town enables a considered approach
       that, having understood the harm, and balancing the matters carefully, including
       the statutory duty to conserve and enhance the conservation area, a departure
       from policy is appropriate.
18.10 The negotiations to date have shied away from moving the store further towards
      the R Allen, if Members felt this might improve the setting and make the scheme
      acceptable, albeit at the price of some of the open space proposed then it is
      suggested that the response of the Committee would be to agree to resolve to
      grant permission subject to negotiations on this point.
18.11 Indeed, if Members conclude that permission is to be granted in this instance then,
      to allow an appropriate opportunity to negotiate the matters related to renewable
      energy, and the management of the River Allen, including the construction
      methodology for the proposal as a whole, and to agree planning conditions in
      detail it would, it is suggested, be best to agree to grant permission in principle
      and then defer the item for a short report just on these issues for decision in due
      course. It is also to be noted that if the Committee were minded to grant
      permission then the decision would be offered up to the Secretary of State under
      the „departure‟ procedure to see if the application warrants to be „called in.‟
18.12 Notwithstanding the above advice, the recommendation is that the damage
      caused by the proposal to the quality of the existing open space and the harm to

          the conservation area is not able to be mitigated by the package as a whole and
          balancing all the matters carefully, including the representations received to date,
          the application cannot be supported.

19. Recommendation with Reasons for Refusal and Informative Notes
   19.1   The application is recommended for refusal for the following reasons. It will be
          noted that, as part of the recommendation, there are informative notes (1 – 3)
          which set out a negotiation position in the event of a planning appeal concerning
          Reasons for Refusal 2, 3, 4 and 5. The last informative note is the standard
          requirement to explain what provisions the Council considered in determining the

           Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

          Reason 1
          The site lies on the eastern edge of the town centre and represents a transitional
          space between the commercial activities and character of the town centre and it‟s
          more residential and domestic hinterland. It is one of the few remaining open
          spaces of any scale or note within the town centre, due to its long-term dedicated
          use as a private cricket pitch. The nature of its use underpins the open quality of
          the site and setting for a number of historic and listed buildings. The space also
          provides a foreground for the wooded slopes of Rowlands Hill which has the effect
          of bringing the treescape closer to the town.
          Its existence makes an important and positive contribution to the local
          distinctiveness and special character of the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area
          in which it is situated.
          The local planning authority has a duty in the exercise of its planning functions to
          have regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or
          appearance of a conservation area. The development of a supermarket and car
          park on a substantial part of this site would conflict with this objective as, by
          reason of the proposed building‟s size, design, and appearance of the car park
          together with its associated access arrangements, it would have a negative impact
          on its surroundings and cause harm to the character and appearance of the
          conservation area.
          Furthermore, in the opinion of the local planning authority, there is not an
          exceptional case or other material considerations sufficient to set aside the harm
          to the conservation area or the quality of the environment which should be
          protected from development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the advice set
          out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 „Planning and the Historic Environment
          1994‟; Environment Policy I of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan
          (2001) and ENV1 and ENV5 being the emerging policies as set out in Draft
          Revised Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (July 2008).
          Reason 2
          The construction of the proposed car park is unacceptable in the absence of a
          legally enforceable arrangement with the landowner to ensure its management
          accords with the other main car parks in and around Wimborne Town Centre. The
          potential traffic congestion and amenity detriment that might result from this car
          park becoming too attractive would result in a development that does not accord
          with the principles of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport (2001), Policy
          TRANS3 of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan (February 2001),
          and policies SHDEV1 and WIMCO5 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002).

Reason 3
The loss of the Cricket Pitch as a recreational playing field is unacceptable, in the
absence of a legally enforceable arrangement with the landowner to ensure a
satisfactory provision on an alternative site. The proposal is therefore contrary to
the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 – Planning for Open
Space, Sport and Recreation (2002), Policy I of the Bournemouth, Dorset and
Poole Structure Plan (2001) and Policy RCDEV1 of the East Dorset Local Plan
Reason 4
The proposal fails to satisfactorily accommodate the requirement for the
restoration and maintenance of the chalk stream habitat of the River Allen, which
is a Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat, and is therefore contrary to the advice
in the Planning Policy Statement – Biodiversity and Nature Conservation (PPS 9)
(2005), and is also contrary to Environment Policy ENV4 of the Draft Revised
Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (July 2008), and policy WEN4 of the
East Dorset Local Plan (2002).
Reason 5
The proposal as submitted does not demonstrate how at least 10% of the energy
to be used in the development is to come from decentralised and renewable or
low carbon energy sources. The development is therefore contrary to Policy RE5
of the Draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (July 2008) and
the principles embodied in Planning Policy Statement 22 on Renewable Energy
Informative Notes:
Note 1
With regard to Reasons 2 and 3 above, the Council has an expectation that these
matters can be resolved, in the event of a planning appeal, by the landowner
providing appropriate provisions in a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Note 2
With regard to Reason for Refusal 4, the Council, in the event of a planning
appeal, is willing to continue to negotiate to a satisfactory solution on this aspect
which will require:
        A schedule of initial works
        A continuing management regime
        Appropriate revisions to the proposed landscape scheme.
        An appropriate provision in a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of
         the Town and Country Planning Act, dealing with the continuing
         maintenance of the bankside and the surface water interceptors.
Note 3
With regard to Reason for Refusal 5, the Council, in the event of a planning
appeal, is willing to continue to negotiate revisions to the proposal to try to resolve
this requirement.
Note 4
In refusing the development and in accordance with Article 22 of the Town and
Country Planning General (Procedure) Order 1995, the Council had regard to the

          following: (Herein put the text from the body of the report and Appendix 1 suitably

20. Appendices
   20.1   Appendix 1 – Relevant local plan policies (cross referenced in the main text).
   20.2   Appendix 2 – Characterisation of the site and surroundings.
   20.3   Appendix 3 – Comments on the Proposed Design by R Nother.
   20.4   Appendix 4 – Response from Cushman & Wakefield, the Council‟s Shopping
   20.5   Appendix 5 – Consultee Responses.
   20.6   Appendix 6 – Summary of Individual Responses from Members of the Public.

21. Background Papers
   21.1   None.


To top