table of contentsha2.boroughofpoole.com/akspoole/images/att21634.docx · web viewit is considered...

Borough of Poole

Planning Committee

List of Planning Applications

19 June, 2014

1

BOROUGH OF POOLE

Planning Committee

DATE: 19 June 2014 at 13.00

NOTES:

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

about the time at which any item may be considered.

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

3. Councillors who are not members of the Planning Committee but who wish to attend to make comments on any application on this list or accompanying agenda are required to give notice by informing the chairman or Head of Planning and Regeneration Services before the meeting.

4. Councillors who are interested in the detail of any matter to be considered should consult the files with the relevant officers to avoid queries at the meeting.

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

6. Letters of representation referred to in these reports together with any other background papers may be inspected at any time prior to the Meeting and these papers will be available at the Meeting.

7. For the purposes of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, unless otherwise stated against a particular report, “background papers” in accordance with section 100D will always include the case officer’s written report and any letters or memoranda of representation received (including correspondence from all internal Borough Council Service Units).

8. Councillors are advised that if they wish to refer to specific drawings/plans which are not part of these papers to contact the relevant case officer at least 24 hours before the meeting to ensure these can be made available.

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

2

TABLE OF CONTENTSPlanning Committee19 June 2014 at 13.00

Not before 13:0001 Land at Anjou Close, Poole APP/13/01502/F 402 Mannings Heath Retail Park, Yarrow Road,

Poole, BH12 4QYAPP/13/01597/F 11

03 17 Nairn Road, Poole, BH13 7NF APP/14/00213/F 1904 8 Grasmere Road, Poole, BH13 7RH APP/14/00236/F 26

Not before 14:0005 Harbour Heights Hotel, 73 Haven Road, Poole,

BH13 7LWAPP/14/00455/F 34

06 12 Lake Road, Poole, BH15 4LH APP/13/01235/F 4207 5 Gordon Road South, Poole, BH12 1EF APP/14/00432/F 4808 45A Lulworth Avenue, Poole, BH15 4DH APP/14/00574/F 54

Not before 15:0009 17 Avalon, Poole, BH14 8HT APP/14/00507/F 5910 76 Compton Avenue, Poole, BH14 8PY APP/14/00431/F 65

3

ITEM NO 01APPLICATION NO. APP/13/01502/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS Land at Anjou Close, Poole

PROPOSALS Erection of 5no houses and 1no bungalow with associated parking.

REGISTERED 5 December, 2013APPLICANT Raglan Design & BuildAGENT Trinity Architecture Ltd

WARD Merley & Bearwood

CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee because the application site is owned by the Council, the applicant is a Registered Provider of Affordable Housing and the application involves the delivery of Affordable Housing.

Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution

THE PROPOSAL Erection of 5no houses and 1no bungalow with associated parking.

MAIN ISSUESThe principal issues for consideration in this case relate to the character and appearance of the area, the impact on landscape and trees, amenity of residents and the impact on parking access and highway safety.

SITE DESCRIPTIONThe site is in the centre of the residential estate of Bearwood, it is at the north end of Anjou Close a cul-de-sac occupied by terraced and semi-detached houses. It is to the west of and is adjacent to Knights Road, the main estate road.

The ground level along Anjou Close is higher than Knights Road and the site slopes down to the north to the level of Knights Road and houses to the west on Eleanor Drive. It is covered by mature trees, subject to a TPO and is used by badgers and bats. A chain link fence encloses the site, but has been subject to regular vandalism and the site has suffered from fly tipping.

There are footpaths along the north and west boundaries serving other residential areas.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY2000: Erect a pre-fabricated building to be used as a youth centre/play group and construction of play area and car park. Approved. This consent was never implemented and has no lapsed (00/26512/003)

4

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE2010: Pre-app proposing to use the land for residential development was supported in principle, acknowledged flats would be inappropriate and regard should be had to the area/part of the site considered acceptable for development in the previous application, having regard to the extent of tree coverage on the site (10/00220)

COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONThe applicants have indicated that consultation was carried out with residents and with Ward Councillors

CONSULTATIONSThe Head of Transportation Services: Objects to the layout of the parking compromising on site vehicle manoeuvring, the parking provision for unit 6 and the lack of street lighting on site. A footpath between Knights Road and Anjou Close is desirable.

The Head of Housing & Community Services: Supports the scheme for delivering affordable family housing and accepts that the viability delivers a policy compliant scheme.

The Head of Environmental & Consumer Protection Services: Has no objection as Waste Collection Authority, but acknowledges the potential conflict between collecting residents refuse if cars are parked in a manner so as to obstruct safe turning at the end of Anjou Close. Concerns are also raised regarding the robustness of ecological survey work undertaken and requiring further work to be undertaken prior to the commencement of development, but recommends conditions could mitigate elements of concern.

REPRESENTATIONS15 letters of representation have been received.

14 object to the proposals due to the overdevelopment of the site; the lack of parking; and detrimental impact of additional vehicle movements on highway and pedestrian safety. The loss of trees and natural habitat and harm to badgers on the site. Loss of residential amenity due to noise from residents. No need in Poole due to sufficient open space and empty buildings. Failure to provide a library. Problems with on site flooding.

1 letter supports the application for making use of a unattractive often litter strewn site and that this would prevent its use as a location for Gypsies and Travellers.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXTNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012SEDTCS - Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on highway infrastructure.Dorset Heathlands SPD - Securing Contributions towards protecting SSSI Heathlands from harm.

5

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

The following policies are listed as applying to this application.

Poole Core Strategy (2009)PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS28 Dorset Heaths International DesignationsPCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS36 Joint WorkingPCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping PlacesPCS06 Affordable Housing

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

PLANNING JUDGEMENTThe scheme proposes to erect 2 pairs of semi-detached houses, a detached house and a detached bungalow. All six homes would be accessed from the existing turning head at the end of Anjou Close and front on to that road and all six would be provided as affordable homes.

The character of the area is residential, with terraced, semi-detached and detached houses in close proximity to the site. Due to being a residential estate, there is a consistency in the style, appearance and materials of the existing houses. The scheme would preserve the residential character and be designed in a manner to respect the appearance of the area, without slavishly repeating it. The layout of the houses would focus on the existing turning head and proposed parking courtyard, positively engaging with Anjou Close, offering overlooking and interaction with the parking areas and public realm.

The houses have been designed to reflect the changing ground levels across the site, with several of the houses using split levels internally. The style and appearance of the houses would sit comfortably together and alongside the existing houses.

Due to the layout, orientation and position of the site and plots therein, the scheme would not give rise to overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing of the neighbouring properties detrimental to their amenity, outlook or levels of light.

There are in excess of 50 trees on the site, of various species, though predominately maturing Oaks. Of the 22 trees proposed to be removed, only 2 are category B trees and the remainder are category C, many of which are in poor condition, maturing or ivy clad. As such the loss of these trees is considered acceptable and would allow the development of the site whilst retaining the higher category and quality trees, maintaining

6

the positive contribution the site makes to the appearance of the area. Furthermore provision has been made for at least 10 trees to be planted, which could be secured by condition.

The layout of the scheme accommodates the retained trees, maintaining appropriate separation to minimise the potential for damage during construction and any likelihood of future pressure to allow further removal or significant pruning to secure appropriate residential amenity. No dig specification hard surfaces would be used to provide parking bays where they are in close proximity to trees.

Sufficient parking is provided to meet the needs of the development and arranged in a manner to ensure safe manoeuvring is achieved, overcoming the concerns of the transportation officer raised above. Access to the site would be from the turning head at the end of the Anjou Close, but would not compromise the space for the turning of large vehicles such as refuse wagons.

A pedestrian link between Knights Road and Anjou Close has been indicated on the plans to improve pedestrian permeability for all residents of the area.

Being a scheme involving 6 residential units, Policy PCS06 is relevant. The applicant, a Registered Provider of Affordable Homes, is proposing to deliver all 6 as affordable housing. This is supported as viable by the applicants viability assessment and would be secured by a S.106 agreement. This would make a positive contribution to the availability of affordable family homes in the Borough.

The scheme is supported by an Energy and Resource Statement indicating that the scheme would be delivered to achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and include solar thermal panels on the roof and permeable surfaces to patios and parking areas.

Because of the natural state of the site and the extent of tree coverage, it has created attractive habitats for a range of species, some of which are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The main findings of survey work is evidence of badgers using the site and surrounding land, with a badger sett identified on adjoining land and bats foraging in the site. Neither of these would compromise the development, but require mitigating on site. A designated route for badgers to move between the land accommodating their sett and open land to the north would be provided and bat boxes installed.

The Councils Nature Conservation Officer has suggested that this survey work alone is not sufficient to guarantee no harm would be caused to the species identified, but suggests conditions could be used to ensure significant harm would not be caused and improve the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant.

On this basis it is considered that the scheme would not give rise to such harm to the habitats and species identified that would not be recoverable or be mitigated for to render the scheme unacceptable.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONSOwing to the viability of the scheme 100% of the development would be provided as affordable housing.

7

The provision of a footpath link between Anjou Close and Knights Road, that will be built to adoptable standards and made available for adoption by the Local Highway Authority.

Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September 2012. In accordance with CIL Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council’s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole’s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development’s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £7,195.00 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £43,170.00 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 471.62sqm x £75.00/sq.m equating to £35,371.50. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice. However on the basis that the scheme would be secured as 100% affordable housing, the applicant would be entitled to apply for relief from CIL.

Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attach to those considerations

The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event, or the scheme should be refused in any event.

In addition, owing to the viability assessment that has now been reviewed 6 units have been secured as Affordable Housing.

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

CONCLUSION

8

The scheme secures a range of affordable family homes that will make a positive contribution to the availability of affordable housing in the Borough. The design, layout and orientation, parking provision and layout would preserve the amenities of the neighbours, highway safety and ensure the retention of the important trees on the site.

The application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND PAPERSNone

RECOMMENDATIONIt is therefore recommended that this application be Granted with CIL Contribution and subject to a S.106 Agreement securing the following:

1. The provision of 6 units (100%) of Affordable Housing in accordance with Policy PCS06 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, Policy IN2(E) of the Delivering Poole's Infrastructure Development Plan Documents 2012 and Affordable Housing SPD 2011

2. The provision and making available for adoption of a footpath linking Anjou Close and Knights Road across the area indicated as open space on the approved plans.

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

2. PL01 (Plans Listing)

3. GN050 (Matching Materials)

4. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)

5. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the dwelling(s) hereby permitted shall achieve Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The dwellings shall not be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for them certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieve.

Reason:In order to ensure the delivery of a sustainable and energy efficient scheme and in accordance with Policies PCS31, PCS32(ii) and (iii) and PCS35 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted Feb 2009 and guidance contained within Section 10 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

6. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required)

7. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) (At least ten trees)

8. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development)

9

9. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Prior to the commencement of development details and locations of bat and bird boxes to be installed on the site and the details of the measures to form the badger corridor, shown on the approved plans, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall then be implemented and thereafter retained.

Reason.In order to mitigate the impact of the development on species currently using the site and in accordance with DM09 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies 2012.

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)

2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval)

10

ITEM NO 02APPLICATION NO. APP/13/01597/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS Mannings Heath Retail Park, Yarrow Road, Poole, BH12

4QY

PROPOSALS Freestanding two storey restaurant with associated drive-thru, car parking and landscaping. Installation of 2no customer order display and canopy.

REGISTERED 23 December, 2013APPLICANT MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT LTDAGENT Planware Ltd

WARD Newtown

CASE OFFICER Laura Archer

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee because the proposals represent a departure from the Development Plan

Recommendation for Grant with Conditions (Delegate to Head of Planning and Regeneration)

THE PROPOSAL Freestanding two storey restaurant with associated drive-thru, car parking and landscaping. Installation of 2no customer order display and canopy.

MAIN ISSUES

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

appropriateness of land use design, character, appearance and setting residential amenity highways safety, networking and provision environmental sustainability contaminated land

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is within the Mannings Heath Retail Park and is currently laid out as car parking for adjacent retail units. The site is located north of the units and is accessed via a shared access to the retail park in Yarrow Road. The site is adjacent to a roundabout and is bounded by highway to the north. The wider surrounding comprise the Tower Park Leisure Complex and Mannings Heath industrial estate which is designated as

11

employment land. There is a stand-alone restaurant opposite the site and at Tower Park Leisure Complex.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Mannings Heath Retail Park

1986 - Laying out of roads and sewers and construction of retail warehouses on the land hatched red (26805/1). Granted.

1986 - Layout of roads and sewers associated with planning permission 5/85.26805/1 for the erection of a retail warehouse and associated infrastructure (26805/2). Granted.

1986 - Erect 3 retail warehouse units (26805/5). Granted. The original planning permission for the existing units, Condition 8 of which prohibited the sale of food and drink for consumption off the premises, clothing and fashion accessories, toys, books and stationery.

1994 - Vary condition 8 of planning permission 5/86/26805/5/F granted 11 july 1986 to also enable the sale of clothing and fashion accessories, toys, books and stationery (26805/13). Refused.

1996 - Relief of condition 8 of planning permission 5/86/26805/5/F granted 11.7.86 to allow the sale of children's goods including baby food (26805/15). Refused.

1996 - Change of use from A1 retail warehouse to leisure (nightclub) D2 (26805/16). Refused.

Wesex Gate Retail Park

2008 - Erect restaurant with drive through take-away accessed from Broadstone Way, including new Toucan Crossing (Revised Scheme) (08/23190/034/F). Refused. Reason 1 stated as follows:-

The proposal would result in a retail operation that is inappropriate on a retail park designed for bulky goods which cannot readily be accommodated elsewhere within the Borough's retail hierarchy which could be harmful to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre, and as such would be contrary to Policy S6 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration 2004 (as amended by Secretary of State Direction 2007) and Policy PCS 13 of the Poole Core Strategy Submission Document - Adopted Version (January 2009).

The application was allowed on appeal. The Inspector states that 'given the location of the proposal facility with a substantial number of retail outlets (not only selling bulky goods) in the vicinity, it appears to me that the restaurant would be in the nature of ancillary facility for people visiting Wessex Gate and the other surrounding retail parks. ...the trade for the proposed restaurant, which is intended as a KFC outlet, would mainly be drawn from people already visiting Wessex Gate and nearby parks to view and buy goods there and also from passing traffic. I do not consider that significant amounts of custom would be drawn away from the town centre.' The Inspector concluded that 'the

12

proposal would not have any adverse effect on the vitality and viability of Poole Town Centre'.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

2013 - Pre Application as sought in respect of a drive through fast food restaurant and associated access (ref: PREA/13/00138) on this site. In the letter of response dated 3rd September 2013, regard was had to the appeal decision at Wessex Gate Retail Park 08/23190/034/F, so whilst the proposal would not fit into the criteria set out in PCS13ii, no existing retail provision would be lost as a result of the proposal and therefore the scale, role, function and nature of the proposal would be acceptable and would not prejudice delivery of the Town Centre North or undermine the Borough's retail strategy. However, issues were raised in respect of transportation, namely the proposed right hand turn lane into the site which would prejudice the proposed cycle scheme and compromise cycle safety. It was suggested that it may be possible to carry out widening of Yarrow Road to increase lane widths to accommodate an on-road cycle lane or the access could be moved further towards the roundabout however, further investigations would be required in respect of land ownership and forward visibility for vehicles. It was advised that the offer of additional vehicle access through the adjacent retail store car park should be taken up, cycle stands would be required, and also a footpath should be introduced across the highway verge for pedestrian flows which would be anticipated from Tower Park.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Site notices. The application had been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan and the necessary Press notice will not have expired by the date of Planning Committee.

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Transportation Services - no highway objection subject to a condition being imposed in respect of the new footway and HW100.

ECPS Services - no objection subject to a condition being imposed in respect of contaminated land.

REPRESENTATIONS

Multi Tile Ltd - objects to the application as they consider it would increase the vehicular traffic along the access lane within the retail park leading to vehicle congestion and potential for accidents between vehicles and pedestrians. Also concerns about littering.

Chorley Burdett Furniture and Poole Fabric Warehouse support the application as an opportunity to bring more trade to the retail park.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

13

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012)The NPPF sets out national planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Section 2 is titled Ensuring the vitality of town centres. Paras 24, 26 and 27 are most relevant to this application. Para 12 is also particularly relevant as Poole has an up to date local development plan that is consistent with national policy.

National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) - March 2014

The NPPG provides additional guidance to support the NPPF. Section 2 entitled Ensuring the vitality of town centres is most relevant, in particular the guidance on sequential testing and impact assessment.

LOCAL CONTEXT


Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009)

PCS13 Retail Growth Outside The Town CentrePCS15 Access and MovementPCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS24 Design and Access StatementsPCS26 Delivering Locally Distinctive, Self-Reliant PlacesPCS27 Safer CommunitiesPCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS33 Environmental Performance Of Commercial BuildingsPCS35 Energy And Resources Statements

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

Development Management Policies:DM1 DesignDM3 ShoppingDM7 Accessibility and SafetyDM8 Demand Management

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

Land Use

The Local Development Plan identifies Manning’s Heath Retail Park for the sale of bulky goods and DIY retail floor space which are not suited to a town centre location. This proposal for a restaurant is contrary to Core Strategy Policy PCS13 (ii).

The applicant has pointed out that there are other material considerations to warrant approval of this application, notably the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The applicant considers that there is a lack of better located sites; that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect upon the town centre and local centre; is in sustainable

14

location adjacent to Tower Park Leisure complex and would generate jobs.

A sequential and impact assessment has been submitted to support the application. McDonalds already operate a town centre restaurant and the results of sequential test demonstrate that there are no available, suitable sites within local centres. The applicant states that the vast majority of trips (79-88%) are pass-by, joint or linked trips and, taking this into account, it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the town centre and local centres.

There are four bulky goods retail parks within the Borough. Of the 33 units on these sites, only 1 is currently vacant (Comet), which indicates that despite recession, the bulky goods retail market in this locality is still relatively healthy. The Council intends to review the 2007 Retail and Leisure Capacity Study to provide further evidence of the changing retail market and the type/location of suitable premises. This may identify the need and capacity for further bulky goods retail units however, currently this particular retail park is well established with no current plans for redevelopment or intensification of the site with bulky/DIY goods. The existing units back onto and do not relate well to the adjacent Tower Park. The proposal could potentially better this link and aid the vitality of the retail park. The proposal would create further employment and since the site is an under-utilised car parking area within the park, it would not result in the loss of any existing unit currently used for bulky goods retail.

Design, character, Setting and Appearance

The proposal is a detached two-storey building with associated car park, patio area and drive through. The orientation of the building would be such that it would have sufficient regard to the corner sitting of the site and the neighbouring units. As a two-storey building with a flat roof it would appear subservient to the neighbouring units which are much larger in terms of scale and bulk. There is a mix of design and style of buildings in the surrounding area. The proposed contemporary style building with a patio providing outdoor activity would be attractive and provide visual interest in this locality which would both complement and enhance the character and appearance of the area.

Since the site is currently a car park, it is largely hardstanding and whilst the proposal comprises of substantial built coverage to facilitate the car park and drive through, it would be no more harmful in terms of appearance to the existing. The highway verge around the site is grass and shrubs which would be largely retained except for the new pedestrian link.

Amenity

The nearest residential is to the west of the duel carriageway and as such, the proposal is not likely to have any material impact upon the amenities of any nearby residents. Agreement of the details for ventilation / extraction should be secured by condition to ensure that the any emissions do not have adverse impact upon the neighbouring retails units.

Highways Safety, Networking and Provision

The proposal would result in a loss of car parking within the retail park and parking survey information has been submitted to support the application which demonstrates that the

15

loss of this car parking would not result in significant parking issues within the retail park.

The site layout provides 28 parking bays (excluding grill order bays) which is 2 spaces below the optimum set out in the Parking and Highway Layout in Development SPD. The submitted parking surveys indicate that at peaks times in an existing similar restaurant at another location, there was a demand for 29 parking bays and therefore there is potential for the proposed car park to reach capacity. However, there is capacity for car parking within the retail park to be used as overflow parking at peak times and there is also potential for linked trips with users of the retail park visiting the restaurant without relocating their car from the retail park car park. Therefore, it is considered that the level of car parking proposed would be acceptable.

The amended plans include provision for a pedestrian walkway to the north of the site onto Yarrow Road which will improve access links between the retail park and Tower Park. Agreement of the details for the walkway is secured by condition.

Environmental Sustainability

An energy and resources statement has been submitted and the applicant have also confirmed that they would achieve a 'very good' BREEAM rating and either use of on-site renewable sources or by linking with/contributing to available local off-site renewable energy sources to meet a minimum of 10% of predicted energy use complying with PCS31 and PCS33. A condition is attached to ensure that these measures are met.

Contaminated Land

The site is located on an area of former clay pits and landfill gases have been shown to be present on neighbouring sites. As such, there is a potential for contamination to exist and an investigation; risk assessment; and remediation scheme as necessary should be secured by condition.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

Not applicable.


Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to prejudice the vitality and viability of the town centre or local centres or undermine the Borough's strategy for retail. The design, layout and appearance of development would complement the local distinctiveness in this locality and appropriate conditions have been secured in respect of materials, landscaping, highways provision, land contamination and environmental sustainability.

RECOMMENDATIONIt is therefore recommended that this application be Delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration with a view to Grant with Conditions upon the expiry of the statutory notification period (Press Advert) subject to no new representations being received which

16

raise material considerations not already addressed by the Planning Committee

Subject to the following Conditions:



3. GN030 (Sample of Materials)

4. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted)

5. LS050 (Hard Landscaping)

6. NP080 (Fume Extraction Equipment)

7. NP090 (Contaminated Land)

8. RC060 (Limitation on Use)Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactments thereof, the development hereby approved shall be used for a restaurant/takeaway (A3/A5) purposes only and for no other use purposes, whatsoever, including any other purpose in Class A of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any subsequent re-enactment, without formal planning permission first being obtained.

Reason -To ensure that it will not prejudice the vitality and viability of the town centre and local centres in accordance with Policy 13 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009).

9. RC090 (Restriction on Enlarging Floor Space)


11. HW220 (Specified Works)Prior to the commencement of the development, construction details for the proposed 'New Footway Link' across the highway verge ,as indicated on the site layout plan, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval and the new footway link shall be thereafter be implemented in accordance with those approved details prior to the commencement of use hereby permitted.

Reason -These specified works are seen as a pre-requisite of allowing this development to proceed and in accordance with Policy PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009) and DM7 and DM8 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies (adopted 2012).

17

12. GN120 (Storage of Refuse)

13. GN161 (BREEAM)

14. GN163 (Renewable Energy - Non Residential)

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)amendments to the scheme which addressed issues that had been identified

18

ITEM NO 03APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00213/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS 17 Nairn Road, Poole, BH13 7NF

PROPOSALS Demolition of the existing dwelling and detached garage and the construction of two detached dwellings with integral garaging.

REGISTERED 20 February, 2014APPLICANT Towncourt Homes ltdAGENT David James Architects and associates ltd

WARD Canford Cliffs

CASE OFFICER James Larson

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Sorton.

Recommendation for Grant with Conditions

THE PROPOSAL Demolition of the existing dwelling and detached garage and the construction of two detached dwellings with integral garaging.

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to Impact on the setting and character of the site and surrounding area Impact on residential amenities Protected trees Parking and access Flood risk CIL compliance

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located on the southeast side of Nairn Road, close to the junction with Dornie Road and is occupied by a detached two storey house centrally located with a large rectangular plot.

The area is wholly residential with a mixture of both flats and houses nearby, with the houses having a variety of styles and plot sizes but being mostly two-storey and detached.

Nos.19 and 19a to the southwest of the site are of a similar building and plot size to the proposals.

19

There area is sylvan in character, with several protected trees on the site and on the adjoining properties. There is a low boundary wall to the front of the site, allowing clear views of the existing house and into the rear of the site. Currently the existing garden and house have an unkempt appearance.


There is no recent relevant planning history on the application site.

19 (and 19a) Nairn Road:

2003: Demolish existing dwellings at nos., and erect two 2-storey 4-bed detached houses with integral garages. Granted (03/08946/006/F)


None


Adjoining properties and relevant consultees have been notified.

CONSULTATIONS

Natural England: Contributions should be secured to mitigate the impact of the scheme on the Dorset

Heathlands. The proposals have the potential to harm protected species if present on the site –

refer to standing advice.

Transportation Services No highway objection subject to condition HW100 requiring the proposed parking and

turning to be implemented and retained, and informative IN130 advising that the kerb crossing needs to be lowered.

REPRESENTATIONS

There have been letters of support from the owner/occupiers of nos. 9, 12, 19 and 29 Nairn Road.

Letters of objection have been received from the owner/occupiers of nos. 15 and 27 Nairn Road in which the following concerns are expressed:

The location of the proposed houses would prevent a tree replacement being planted in the location of the protected tree it replaces.

Lossl of protected trees and location of proposed replacements, close to no.15, which would cause overshadowing.

Site clearance and removal of trees and shrubs that has occurred. Proposals would be at odds and harmful to the spaciousness and character of the

20

site and surrounding area by reason of their height, size, plot coverage, and proximity to the side boundaries.

The proposals are too close to the adjoining properties which is likely to cause overlooking, overbearing and loss of light.

The development of no.19 and 19a Nairn Road should not be taken as a precedent as they are harmful to the character of the area.

The proposals by reason of their height, depth and proximity to the side boundary, would cause overlooking, overbearing, loss of light and loss of outlook to no.15, particularly combined with the existing trees, which overshadow the garden of no.15.

The side windows on the northeast elevation of proposed house 2 would overlook the side windows of no.15.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012)

LOCAL CONTEXT



PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS15 Access and MovementPCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS26 Delivering Locally Distinctive, Self-Reliant PlacesPCS28 Dorset Heaths International DesignationsPCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS34 Flood Risk


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

Character and Appearance of the AreaThe proposal would replace the existing dwelling with two dwellings positioned side by side. The proposed dwellings would have an adequate amount of garden amenity space, and would be broadly consistent in terms of layout and density with other dwellings as

21

built or approved nearby, particularly those as built at nos.19 and 19a Nairn Road.

In terms of their appearance, the proposed houses would integrate well within the streetscene, where other 2/3 storey buildings of more contemporary appearance are evident, and given the variety of architectural styles, distances between buildings and plot sizes, it is considered that the proposals would not appear at odds, but would contribute positively.

The arboricultural officer has advised that they have no objection to the revised protection measures, tree removals and replants, but that some amendments to the proposed mitigation are required. A revised Arboricultural Method Statement should therefore be secured by condition to increase the proposed area of Silva cell rooting system, in order to provide an improved rooting environment for the tree replacements that are within confined rooting areas.

In addition, trees that are to be removed, which are considered to be acceptable given their poor condition, should be replaced by trees to be agreed by condition, and could be planted on the site frontage, which would contribute positively to the sylvan character of the area. These should number 6 trees in total. The details of the tree replacements could be included in a revised Arboricultural Method Statement, which should also be secured by condition.

Privacy and amenitiesAmended plans received on 4 April 2014 have inset the first floor east corner of the house, to increase the separation of the first floor side wall from the rear windows and amenities of no.15. The increased separation will now prevent materially harmful overbearing, loss of light and outlook from occurring to the rear windows and garden of no.15, particularly given the significant separation distance between the buildings, which would be approx. 4.5m.

Whilst there would be a narrower gap of approximately 2m. between house 1 and no.19 Nairn Road, this would not cause a materially harmful loss of day light or outlook to no.19.

The proposed upper windows on the front and rear elevations would only allow more distant or oblique views to the surrounding properties and would therefore not result in any material overlooking.

In order to respect the privacy of the adjoining properties it is recommended that the proposed first floor side windows, which would face onto the side windows of the adjoining properties, should be obscure glazed and have restricted opening by condition. For the same reason it is recommended that the sides of the balconies on the northwest elevation be fitted with obscure glazed screens by condition.

In addition the second floor flat roof area of house 1 should be prevented from being used as a balcony or roof garden by condition, to prevent intrusive overlooking from occurring to the adjoining properties.

Parking and AccessThe proposals will provide at least 2 car parking spaces per unit which meets the Councils parking guidelines and provide adequate access and turning on site, including pedestrian

22

visibility splays. The proposals will therefore provide safe access and egress from the site.

Other MattersGiven that the proposals would involve works to demolish the existing building, roosting bats if present could be affected. Any approval could nevertheless be subject to a condition requiring a bat check to be undertaken, and if bats are found, a strategy for their safe removal and relocation.

It is necessary to condition the proposals to be built to a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (or any equivalent successor), in order to ensure that the scheme is sustainable and energy efficient.

In addition, the proposed areas of vehicle hard standing should be constructed using a method of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems to prevent onsite flooding, and relieve pressure on existing storm drains. This can be secured by condition.




If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £1439 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £8634 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 498sqm x £150 / sqm equating to £74700. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice.


The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to

23

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

CONCLUSION

The scheme delivers 2 dwellings in a manner that would not harm the character and appearance of the area, or the amenities of the adjoining properties, and would preserve highway safety. The proposals are therefore recommended for approval subject to the following conditions.

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

Conditions


2. AA01 (Non standard Condition)The proposals shall be finished with the materials as detailed on the approved plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason -To ensure that the external appearance of the buildings are satisfactory and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted February 2009..

3. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, all first floor and second floor windows on the northeast and southwest elevations of both houses hereby approved, shall be glazed with obscure glass in a form sufficient to prevent external views and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of opening.

Reason -To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

4. GN080 (Screening to Balcony)

5. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony)

6. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required)

7. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) (6 trees)

24



10. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition)

11. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3)

12. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Prior to development commencing, a visual inspection by suitably qualified and experienced persons holding the appropriate, necessary license shall be carried out and the findings reported to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. Where evidence of species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are concluded details of the timing and method of proposed rescue, protection and relocation of protected species shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall be subsequently carried out in strict accordance with the agreed details of methodology and programme.

Reason -To ensure the protection and rescue of species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Habitats Regulations and the Berne Convention and in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).


Informative Notes



3. IN13 (Kerb Crossing to be Lowered)

25

ITEM NO 04APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00236/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS 8 Grasmere Road, Poole, BH13 7RH

PROPOSALS Demolish existing building and erect 2No 3-bed detached houses (amended plans received 22/04/2014 and 03/06/2014).

REGISTERED 26 February, 2014APPLICANT Northshore Homes LtdAGENT Anders Roberts & Assoc

WARD Canford Cliffs

CASE OFFICER Caroline Palmer

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Mrs. Haines because of concerns regarding sub-division and the intensification of land use eroding the plot size character in the area

Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution

THE PROPOSAL Demolish existing building and erect 2 No 3-bed detached houses.

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to:

The impact on the character and appearance of the area. The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The impact on highways. Sustainability issues. Flooding issues. CIL compliance.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is located in the centre of the Sandbanks peninsula and has a dual aspect, fronting onto Grasmere Road to the south and backing onto Panorama Road to the north. The site is currently occupied by a detached house. The area is residential, dominated by detached houses, many of which have been replaced with larger properties in contemporary architecture resulting in a mixed appearance. The plot to the west of the site at No.10 is occupied by a bungalow, and has extant consent to be sub-divided for the erection of two houses (see Planning History section below). The property to the east

26

was originally a house, but has been extended over the years and has now been converted into three properties, including two flats and what appears as a bungalow in the street scene fronting the part of Grasmere Road on the corner with Panorama Road.

The site is within the flood zone around the edge of the harbour and developments as built or approved on nearby sites have raised finished floor levels (FFL) in order to protect from flooding.


2005: Erect a two storey side extension. Granted (05/13096/002/F)

2011: Alterations and extensions to existing dwelling, including additional storey of accommodation and erect a single storey extension to rear. Refused ( APP/10/01511/F)

10 Grasmere Road January 2014: Demolish existing dwelling and erect two detached dwellings. Approved ( APP/13/01539/F)

March 2014: Demolish existing dwelling and erect two detached dwellings (Revised Scheme). Refused (APP/14/00124/F)


None.


As agreed procedures.

CONSULTATIONS

Dorset Wildlife Trust - the need for a bat survey is highlighted. This can be required by condition.

Harbour Engineer - advises that they hold a covenant on the property and that their consent should be sought prior to construction.

Natural England - Refer to standing advice and CIL contributions.

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

REPRESENTATIONS

5 letters from 4 local residents received in relation to the original plans raising issues including:

The following of a precedent already set in terms of the sub-division of the plot; The overdevelopment of the site;

27

The impact of additional cars; The flat roof design would be out of character with the area; The height, size, bulk and length of the proposed houses and the fact that they would

be overbearing; Flood risk; The impact on the privacy and light of neighbouring properties; Inconsistencies in the plans; Boundary issues; Disruption during the building process.

4 letters from 3 local residents received in relation to the amended plans received on 22/04/2014 raising issues including:

The principle of the sub-division of the plot; The fact that there is no difference between these plans and the original plans apart

from the roof design; The loss of light, view and privacy to the neighbouring property; Disruption resulting from the building process; The impact of the excavation of the site; The overdevelopment of the site; Flood risk; The impact on the building line; Boundary issues; Discrepancies on the plans; and The lack of details regarding the boundary wall.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT



PCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS35 Energy And Resources StatementsPCS34 Flood RiskPCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places


28

Development Management Policies:DM1 DesignDM4 Coastal ZoneDM7 Accessibility and SafetyDM9 Green Infrastructure and BiodiversityDM8 Demand Management PLANNING JUDGEMENT

Character and Appearance of the Area

The proposed scheme would replace the existing house with two houses positioned side by side by sub-dividing the plot. Despite the subdivision of the plot the proposed dwellings would possess an adequate amount of garden amenity space, and would be broadly consistent in terms of layout and density with other dwellings as built or approved nearby, particularly those as built at nos. 5 and 7 Grasmere Road and those approved at no.10 Grasmere Road. As such, the proposed scheme is considered to assemble sufficient land so as to accommodate a type, scale, density and layout of development which preserves the area's residential character and complies with the provisions of Policy PCS05 of the Poole Core Strategy.

In terms of their appearance, the houses proposed by the amended plans would integrate well within the street scene, where other 2-3 storey buildings of more contemporary appearance are evident, as well as a mixture of other housing types and styles.

The proposed scheme involves the excavation of the site in order to provide the lower ground floor level which would house a garage, games room and utility areas and have no habitable accommodation. This enables the habitable floors of the development to be located at 3.55m AOD and above, which makes the scheme acceptable in terms of flood risk. The ridge heights of the proposed houses (at their highest points) would be lower than the highest point of the ridge of the existing property. This would ensure that the houses fit into the street scene in terms of their heights, which will be no higher than the property at No.6 or the approved houses at No.10, yet to be built.

The overall footprint, scale and height of the buildings would be commensurate with the character of the area and emerging pattern of development.

The concerns in relation to the impact of the excavation of the site on the neighbouring properties is noted, however this is not something that can be controlled as part of the planning process.

It is noted that the buildings and extensions to No.6 are not shown accurately on the Ordnance Survey Plans, however an assessment of the site was made during the site visits to No.8 and No.6 and these discrepancies do not have any bearing on the proposed scheme and the recommendation being made. The recommendation is based on the site visits carried out and what was observed at that time. Any issues relating to the location of site boundaries is a civil matter, and this recommendation is made on the basis of the red line shown on the submitted plans. The

29

boundary treatment between the sites could be addressed by a condition.

Neighbouring Amenity and Privacy

The proposed dwellings would be located slightly closer to the road than the existing house, but set back from the approved houses at No.10 and the conservatory to the front of No.6. The west elevation of house 1 would be stepped in further from the boundary with No.10 than the existing side wall of the garage and the east elevation of propose house 2 (adjacent to No.6) would be located on approximately the same line as the existing house. The proposed houses would be no higher than the highest point of the existing house on the site. The footprint of the proposed houses would extend closer to the rear boundary of the site than the existing by approximately 3 metres, with an additional 2.5 metres for the balcony and stairs at first floor level.

In terms of the impact of the proposed houses on the neighbouring properties at No.6, the proposed house on plot 2 would come no closer to the boundary than the existing and the overall height would be no longer than the existing. The eaves height of the proposed house would be slightly higher than the top of the existing dormer on the side elevation. Whilst the wall adjacent to No.6 would be longer than the existing, its height and proximity would not be materially harmful to the light or outlook of those properties, given the existing relationship. It has been noted that there are secondary windows on the side elevation of the flats at No.6, but given that these windows are secondary and the existing relationship, this would not be a sufficient concern to constitute a reason for refusal.

In terms of the impact of the proposed house on plot 2 on the privacy of the occupiers of No.6, and the occupiers of the house on plot 1, the proposed windows on the side elevations can all reasonably be obscure glazed and as such a condition requiring this should be imposed. The plans show privacy screens on both sides of the proposed balcony at first floor level on the rear of the proposed house on plot 2. A condition could be imposed to continue this privacy screen down the side of the staircase adjacent to No.6. This will ensure that the proposals would cause no material harm to the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring flats at No.6.

Given the location, orientation and design of the proposed house on plot 1, it is not considered that this would cause any material harm to the light or outlook of the bungalow currently located at No.10, or the approved houses should they be constructed.

In terms of the impact of the proposed house on plot 1 on the amenities of neighbouring properties, again the windows on the side elevations would serve rooms that would enable them to reasonably be required to be obscure glazed by condition. The proposed balcony to the rear at first floor level is also shown on the plans as having a privacy screen on both sides. Again, a condition would require this to continue down the stairs to ensure no loss of privacy to the occupiers of the future house to be built at No.10. Parking and Access

Both of the proposed properties require two parking spaces to be consistent with Council Parking Policy. The two parking spaces and integral garage proposed for each house would therefore provide adequate parking provision.

30

There is a dropped kerb access to the rear of Plot 2 onto Panorama Road. This should be reinstating as footway. This is to remove the potential for vehicles using this access onto Panorama Road as an alternative access into Plot 2 and compromising the safe free flow along Panorama Road which is a classified District Distributor Road. The rear gated pedestrian accesses are acceptable to both plots.

There are therefore no highway objections to the proposal subject to conditions requiring that the only vehicular access should be from Grasmere Road, as shown on the submitted plans, and that the parking provision be required.

Sustainability Issues

The Energy and Resources statement submitted with the application summarises the ways in which the proposal would comply with PCS 35. The proposed dwellings would be constructed to achieve the relevant level of the Code for Sustainable Homes, as required by the relevant policies in the Core Strategy. This will be ensured by the imposition of a relevant condition.

Flooding Issues

The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which incorrectly indicates that the finished floor level of the habitable areas would be at or above 4.47m AOD. The amended plans nevertheless show the finished level of the lowest habitable floor as 3.55m. AOD. This would ensure that the habitable accommodation would be safe for the life of the building. The Flood Risk Assessment also details measures of flood resistance and resilience including the use of water resistant materials (concrete, brick etc.) at lower levels together with appropriately protected high level electrical infrastructure. These measures should be secured by conditions.




If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive

31

£1439 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £8634 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 226sqm x £150/sqm equating to £33,900. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice.



CONCLUSION

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

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


2. GN030 (Sample of Materials)

3. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, all windows on the approved plan on the side elevations of both houses shall be glazed with obscure glass in a form sufficient to prevent external views and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of opening.

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

4. GN170 (Screening to Balcony - General)



7. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development)


32

9. HW020 (Access To Be From A Specified Road)

10. AA01 (Non standard Condition)The finished floor levels of the buildings hereby approved shall accord with the levels shown on drawing number 8366/103 received 03/06/2014 and the development hereby approved shall be built, strictly in accordance with the measures set out in the approved Flood Risk Assessment prepared by M. Frank Tyhurst dated February 2014 (although also in line with the amended level of 3.55m AOD and not 4.47m AOD) , unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. Furthermore the 'lower ground floor' accommodation shall not at any time be occupied or used as habitable accommodation without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority

Reason -In order to minimise the risk of harm from flooding and in accordance with the provisions of Policy PCS35 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009

11. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Prior to the commencement of works, the existing dwelling is to be checked for bats by a suitably licensed individual. The results of the check, along with any necessary mitigation measures will be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.

Reason -To ensure the protection of bats in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted 2012).


Informative Notes




4. IN12 (Kerb Crossing to be Raised)

33

ITEM NO 05APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00455/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS Harbour Heights Hotel, 73 Haven Road, Poole, BH13

7LW

PROPOSALS Demolish existing laundry rooms and staff accommodation block and erect 4 No 3 bed townhouses with parking - access from Chaddesley Glen

REGISTERED 10 April, 2014APPLICANT Mr ButterworthAGENT Anders Roberts & Assoc

WARD Canford Cliffs

CONSERVATION AREA Harbour Heights Estate


INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Parker

Recommendation for Refuse

THE PROPOSAL Demolish existing laundry rooms and staff accommodation block and erect fouro 3-bed townhouses with parking and access from Chaddesley Glen

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to

The principle of the development The design and impact on the character of the Conservation Area The impact on neighbouring Privacy and Amenity The impact on tourism Highways issues Sustainability issues CIL compliance

SITE DESCRIPTIONThe application site is located within the grounds of the Harbour Heights Hotel and fronts the north side of Chaddesley Glen. The site is within the Harbour Heights Conservation Area.The area is characterised by a mix of flats set in large landscaped grounds and detached

34

dwellings on landscaped plots. The Harbour Heights Hotel forms a backdrop to the application site and St Ann’s Hospital is located to the east. Many properties in the area have individual or groups of protected trees.The existing building on the application site is stated as being used as a laundry and staff accommodation associated with the hotel.


Reference: APP/13/01263/FDescription: Demolish existing laundry rooms and staff accommodation and erect five town houses with parking. Access from Chaddesley Glen (Revised scheme)Decision: RefuseDate: 12/12/2013

Reasons for refusal:

1. The proposal fails to assemble sufficient land to be able to accommodate a type, scale, density, level of amenity space, landscaping and layout of development that preserves the character of the area and the prevailing residential pattern of development. Furthermore, the proposal, by virtue of its position close to Chaddesley Glen, combined with its design, scale, mass, height and density would result in a cramped appearance within the street scene. The proposal would therefore fail to enhance the setting of the Harbour Heights Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS 5 and PCS 23 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009) and DM 1 and DM 2 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies (April 2012).

2. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site by reason of its design, layout and quantum of development that fails to make adequate provision and layout of amenity space, to meet the needs of the future residents prejudicial in particular to the living conditions of the future occupiers. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies PCS5 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009), Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document DPD (adopted April 2012) and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

Reference: APP/13/00639/FDescription: Demolish existing laundry rooms and staff accommodation block and erect 5 No 3 bed town houses with parking - access from Chaddesley Glen (as amended by plans received 26/7/13)Decision: RefuseDate: 23/08/2013

Reasons for refusal: 1. The proposal fails to assemble sufficient land to be able to accommodate a type, scale, density and layout of development that preserves the character of the area and the prevailing residential pattern of development. As such, the proposal would have an incongruous appearance within the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS 5 and PCS 23 of the Poole

35

Core Strategy (Adopted 2009).2. The proposal, by virtue of its position close to Chaddesley Glen, combined with its scale, mass, height and density would result in a cramped appearance within the street scene. In addition, the privacy screens which would be required to overcome concerns associated with neighbouring and future occupant privacy would result in further, materially harmful, bulk to the building. The proposal would fail to enhance the setting of the Harbour Heights Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS 5 and PCS 23 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009) and DM 1 and DM 2 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies (April 2012).

Reference: APP/13/00640/UDescription: Conservation Area application to demolish existing laundry rooms and staff accommodation block.Decision: Grant with ConditionsDate: 23/08/2013


None.


None.

CONSULTATIONS

The Head of Transportation Services - no objection to the scheme, subject to conditions.Natural England – The application site lies within 5 km and beyond 400 m of heathlands. Impact upon heathlands can be overcome by contribution through CIL towards mitigation. The Luscombe Valley SSSI and Poole Harbour SSSI are in close proximity to the site, but do not represent a constraint in determining the application. Natural England have adopted national standing advice for protected species.

REPRESENTATIONS

4 letters received from local residents raising concerns including: The scale, mass and height of the proposed building. The footprint of the proposed building. The impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area due to the

overdevelopment of the plot. Lack of parking. Lack of amenity space. Highway safety issues due to vehicular movements. The impact on the privacy and light of neighbouring properties. The loss of hotel accommodation.

36

The possibility of the houses being used as holiday homes.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT



PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS15 Access and MovementPCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS28 Dorset Heaths International DesignationsPCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS35 Energy And Resources Statements


Development Management Policies:DM1 DesignDM2 Heritage AssetsDM5 Tourism and the Evening EconomyDM7 Accessibility and Safety PLANNING JUDGEMENTThis is a revised scheme from that which was refused in December 2013, which followed the refusal of a previous scheme in August 2013. The reasons for the refusal of those applications are detailed in the Planning History section above. This current application differs from the previously refused scheme in the following main ways:

The reduction in the number of proposed houses from five to four Alterations to the design of the elevations and scale of the building. The removal of the fourth floor (which was added to the previous proposal after the

refusal of the first scheme for a three storey building) and its replacement with a roof terrace.

The removal of the underground car parking.Principle of the DevelopmentThe Harbour Heights Hotel is an important building when seen from the harbour and the Sandbanks peninsula. It is a large building built in the 1930s which has undergone extensive alterations and additions so that its original shape and character have been

37

largely obscured.The application site relates to a detached building within the curtilage of the hotel that was historically used for staff accommodation and laundry associated with the hotel, although the Design and Access Statement submitted as part of the application states that this use has now ceased. The existing building is a white rendered, flat roofed building of little architectural merit and makes little contribution to the street scene. Its demolition and replacement with a more appropriate building, in principle, would be considered acceptable.PCS 5 (iii) requires that residential proposals involving plot severance will only be permitted where sufficient land can be assembled to accommodate a type, scale, density and layout of development that preserves or enhances the area’s residential character. This area is characterised by detached dwellings with areas of landscaped outdoor amenity space to the front and rear of buildings. Purpose built flats close to the application site also have a sense of space and amenity areas around buildings. Overall, there are gaps between buildings and a spacious, landscaped feel to the area.The revised scheme is for a smaller building than that previously refused in December 2013, and the building would also be slightly smaller than that refused in August 2013. The current scheme removes the previously proposed access stairwells (as incorporated in the first scheme). However, the proposed building would still have separate front doors, as well as parking directly in front of them. The proposed building is also very similar to the first scheme proposed on the site in that it would lack gaps between the dwellings, have no private amenity areas at ground floor level (although a shared amenity area is now shown where the fifth unit was originally proposed) and provide no separation from the Harbour Heights Hotel car park. The proposed compact dwellings with horizontal emphasis and vehicular parking positioned tightly in front of the dwellings would emphasis the characteristics of a higher-density development than is uncharacteristic of the area and that is very similar to the scheme refused in August 2013, albeit that there is now one less dwelling proposed and that roof gardens have now been incorporated.Whilst there are flats in the area, accommodation is characterised by space around buildings as well as areas of landscaping. The provision of the garden areas on the roofs of the proposed houses highlights the fact that there is not sufficient space on the site for conventional private amenity areas at ground floor level. Whilst the current building was historically used for staff accommodation, developing the site for four separate units of accommodation would result in a much more intensive use of the land. The fact that the only option for the provision of private amenity space on the site would be through the incorporation of roof gardens highlights the fact that the proposed scheme would result in overdevelopment of the site. The revised proposal fails to overcome the previous reasons for refusal, as they fail to assemble sufficient land to be able to accommodate a type, scale, density, level of amenity space, landscaping and layout of development that preserves the character of the area and the prevailing residential pattern of development. Furthermore the proposal, by virtue of its position close to Chaddesley Glen combined with its design and density, would still result in a cramped appearance within the street scene. The proposal would therefore fail to enhance the setting of the Harbour Heights Conservation Area. Character and AppearanceThe proposed building would result in an increase in bulk scale and mass compared with the existing building and the front elevation of the proposed building would be set further

38

forward towards Chaddesley Glen. The building would not enhance the Conservation Area in accordance with DM01 and DM02. With regard to the design of the proposed building, aside from the curved corners the style has not appropriately picked up on the art deco design, proportions and details found on the other modern movement buildings in the area. The blue glass would make a bulky building stand out further. The façades lack the decorative spandrels and hard-edge, low-relief ornamentation around door and window openings, and along roof edges and parapets, that typify the Art Deco style and could enable this building to make a valuable contribution to the street scene and wider Conservation Area.

Therefore, the proposals would fail to contribute positively to the character of the road, the proposal does not reinforce local distinctiveness and the character of the Conservation Area is not preserved.

Neighbouring Privacy and Amenity The proposal would result in windows on all elevations. Windows on the front and rear elevations would have views with sufficient distance from neighbours opposite to cause no significant concern in terms of overlooking. The windows on the side elevations would be positioned on the ground, first and second floors. The ground floor window would be unlikely to give rise to any harmful levels of overlooking, and would serve an en-suite. The windows on the first floor side elevations would serve living rooms as secondary windows and as such would be reasonably obscure glazed by condition. The windows on the second floor side elevations would be part of the bedroom windows and could also be reasonably obscure glazed by condition since these rooms are also served by other windows.Balconies are proposed on the front elevation at first floor level and on the roof. The proposal also includes screens along the side elevations which would be likely to overcome concerns associated with overlooking. However, these screens add to the bulk of the building at third floor level and this further adds to the concerns associated with the incongruous appearance of the building within the street scene.The proposed building would be positioned slightly closer to the boundary with Harbour Court to the north east and would be higher than the existing building but an adequate gap between the two buildings would be retained. The terrace associated with Flat 3 in Harbour Court is positioned close to its south western boundary, however, there is still sufficient space between the proposal and the terrace to ensure that neighbouring amenity would be preserved in terms of outlook and daylight.The roof terrace at the top of the proposed building would run across the whole length of the front of the building. However, given the orientation of the proposed building in relation to nearby properties, and the distance between the proposal and neighbouring homes, it is not considered that the terrace would give rise to any materially harmful overlooking to the buildings to the front of the site. TourismPolicy DM 5 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies states that loss of hotel accommodation will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer financially viable and that loss would not reduce the stock of hotel accommodation to a point which would harm Poole’s tourism offer.The proposal would result in the loss of a building historically used as ancillary staff accommodation and laundry facilities. The application site was not directly used as hotel

39

rooms and the Design and Access Statement submitted states that the loss of the existing building would not result in the loss of hotel accommodation and that the existing building is now no longer needed. It goes on to state that the funds received from the sale of the redundant staff block would be channelled into the ongoing running of FJB hotels, to ensure their continuing viability. However, the Design and Access Statement does not provide any further information on the impact, if any, on the parent hotel building. Without this information, it is difficult to assess whether the proposal would accord with requirements of DM 5. No information in relation to this issue has been submitted as part of the current application. Had the proposal been acceptable on other issues, further information would have been requested.HighwaysThe proposal indicates 1 parking space per unit plus 2 visitor parking spaces – 6 spaces in total. For units of this size, 10 parking spaces would be required to meet Council guidelines. However, as with the previous applications on this site, the applicant has included the hotel car park within their control as part of the application and has proposed that residents would be entitled to park within that car park. This is considered to be satisfactory in overcoming the specific on site shortfall in parking. A condition to ensure that the access to this parking area remains available to residents could be imposed.

Vehicles reversing off the parking bays in this location is not uncommon as it occurs at present on site. There are therefore no objections to this vehicle manoeuvring.

The frontage forecourt to Plot 1 has been splayed slightly, as per previous applications, which will assist to maintain delivery/refuse access to the rear of the hotel.

Energy and Resources An Energy and Resources Statement has been submitted which makes reference to the use of technology to reduce the carbon footprint of the development. The securing of a development that meets the requirements of level three of the Code for Sustainable Homes could be required by condition. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS


40


If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £5756 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £34,536 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 508sqm x £150/sqm equating to £76,200. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice.

Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attach to those considerations.


CONCLUSION

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

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

Reasons

1. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)The proposal fails to assemble sufficient land to be able to accommodate a type, scale, density and layout of development that preserves the character of the area and the prevailing residential pattern of development. As such, the proposal, with its position close to Chaddesley Glen, would have an incongruous appearance within the street scene and would fail to enhance the setting of the Harbour Heights Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies PCS 5 and PCS 23 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009) and Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted 2012).

Informative Notes

1. IN73 (Working with applicants: Refusal)

2. IN75 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Refusal)

3. IN76 (List of Plans Refused)

41

ITEM NO 06APPLICATION NO. APP/13/01235/FAPPLICATION TYPE FullSITE ADDRESS 12 Lake Road, Poole, BH15 4LH

PROPOSALS Demolition of garage and erection of new bungalow on land at rear.

REGISTERED 4 November, 2013APPLICANT Mr MaidmentAGENT J. Burgess & Associates Ltd

WARD Hamworthy West

CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee because the Head of Planning and Regeneration does not consider it prudent to exercise delegated powers due to the nature of the proposals.

Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution (Delegate to Head of Planning and Regeneration)

THE PROPOSAL Demolition of garage and erection of new bungalow on land at rear.

MAIN ISSUESThe principal issues for consideration in this case relate to the principle of the development, the layout and arrangement and impact on residential amenity.

SITE DESCRIPTIONDetached bungalow on the north side of Lake Road, with a long rear garden backing on to properties on Upwey Avenue and Winspit Close. The character of the area is residential, dominated by detached houses and bungalows.

The bungalow is raised above the level of the road by approximately 1m and the rear garden continues to rise to the rear.

There is a garage at the rear of the bungalow served by a drive at the side of the bungalow.

The site is on the assumed route of the Roman Road through Hamworthy, a heritage asset.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYNone on the application site.

43

10 Lake Road:2013: Erect a replacement garage/shed/outbuilding at the rear approved (13/01236)PRE-APPLICATION ADVICENone

COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONNone

CONSULTATIONSThe Head of Transportation Services: No objection subject to conditions.

The Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services: No objection, but indicates the residents of the proposed dwelling would have to move their bins to the kerb side for collection.

REPRESENTATIONSThe Society of Poole Men object to the overdevelopment of the site, to the size of the amenity space for the existing bungalow and setting a precedent.

An additional notification with an adjacent property has been undertaken and the statutory period will not have expired by the time of Planning Committee.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXTNational Planning Policy Framework 2012SEDTCS - Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on highway infrastructure.Dorset Heathlands SPD - Securing Contributions towards protecting SSSI Heathlands from harm.

LOCAL CONTEXTPlanning Obligation - Recreational Facilities SPG. Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on existing facilitiesBorough of Poole Characterisation Study 2010.


Poole Core Strategy 2009PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential DevelopmentPCS23 Local DistinctivenessPCS28 Dorset Heaths International DesignationsPCS31 Sustainable Energy - GeneralPCS32 Sustainable HomesPCS36 Joint WorkingPCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places

Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD 2012DM1 Design

44

DM2 Heritage AssetsDM7 Accessibility and SafetyDM8 Demand Management

PLANNING JUDGEMENTThe scheme proposes to sever the rear garden of the existing bungalow and erect a detached bungalow. There is an existing drive at the side of the bungalow serving a large detached garage. That garage would be demolished to allow the drive to be extended to provide access to the proposed bungalow.

The character of the area is residential consisting of a mix of houses and bungalows. The properties either side of the application site are bungalows, but there are houses beyond in either direction. Whilst the existing bungalow and several adjacent are positioned towards the front of their plots, with rear gardens extending beyond, this is nevertheless not characteristic of this section of Lake Road since houses to the west are well set back from the road frontage, behind the rear elevation of the neighbouring property in some cases. Because of the rising levels to the north, beyond the site, properties in the adjoining roads are also visible in the Lake Road streetscene. There is also a variety of outbuildings to the rear of the bungalows, including on the application site, that are large enough to have a presence in the streetscene

This variety in the layout of properties surrounding the application site, the presence in the streetscene of the houses beyond the site and the variety of houses and bungalows mean that the siting of the proposed bungalow behind the existing bungalow at no.12 would neither appear either at odds with the existing character of the area nor harm the appearance of the streetscene. Furthermore the existing garage on the site, due to its size, is a feature of the streetscene in many views and the proposed bungalow would be no more prominent or intrusive.

The design and appearance of the proposed bungalow is relatively simple, with a hipped roof with a shallow pitch that would sit comfortably in the streetscene and on the plot.

A common concern with backland, tandem development, is the narrow drive and lack of space around the new dwelling or resultant loss of amenity for the original property. In this case there is ample space to provide a drive to the rear, whilst retaining a substantial gap to the side elevation of the existing bungalow and the side boundary, as such it would not give rise to a conflict between residents accessing the parent property stepping directly out on to the drive serving the rear property and would give the opportunity for a reasonable landscape buffer along the boundary to no.10 Lake Road.

The proposed plot and remaining space around no.12 would afford reasonable amenity space for their respective occupiers and separation of approximately 18m. between the proposed and existing bungalows to maintain privacy. Furthermore because of the size, siting, orientation and design of the proposed bungalow and the size of the existing plot, there would be no overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or loss of outlook to any of the surrounding properties.

Sufficient parking and manoeuvring space is provided to meet the needs of the development and maintain highway safety. Siting parking at the front for existing dwelling is not out of character with the surrounding sites and there is sufficient space to maintain a

45

landscape setting for the site. There is ample width to preserve the safety and amenity of existing occupiers from vehicles using the proposed driveway.

As a new build it would be able to deliver an energy efficient and sustainable development, being in the urban area provides easy access to existing services and facilities, public transport, leisure and social activities. The supporting Energy and Resource Statement indicates that the development would achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. This could be secured by condition.

The site is believed to fall close to the route of a Roman Road through Hamworthy. Whilst current best information suggests only a small area in the north east corner of the site is affected it would not be unreasonable to expect an Archaeologist is present during excavations to inspect foundation trenches. This could be secured by condition.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONSMitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September 2012. In accordance with CIL Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council’s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole’s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development’s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD.


If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive £1439 in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of £8,634.00 in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. Based on information supplied with the application, the Council will receive CIL of 46.95sqm x £75/sqm equating to £3,521.25. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice.



46

CONCLUSIONWhilst residential back gardens cannot be considered as being 'Brownfield' (previously developed) land, where their development for residential purposes would not give rise to detrimental impacts on the character and appearance of an area or harm the amenities of neighbours it can be considered an acceptable form of development. The context of this site, largely owing to its size and the existing layout and pattern of development would not result in harm to the character of the area or the appearance of the streetscene, or give rise to detrimental impacts on the amenities of the occupiers of the surrounding properties.

The application is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

RECOMMENDATIONIt is therefore recommended that this application be Delegated to the Head of Planning And Regeneration with a view to Grant With CIL Contribution upon the expiry of the statutory notification period, subject to no representations being received which raise material planning considerations that have not already been considered by Planning Committee.






6. AR030 (Arrange Archaeological Observations)The applicant shall make arrangements for access for archaeological observation and recording by an approved contractor to take place during any period of demolition and/or development. Details of those arrangements shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority before any work commences on the development site and such arrangements shall be put and maintained in place throughout the course of the development.

Reason -The area is of archaeological potential and it is important that any archaeological features and finds are properly recorded and in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies 2012 and guidance given in Section 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment of the NPPF 2012.

7. GN100 (No Further Windows in Specified Elevatio)Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning Act

47

1990 or any subsequent re-enactments thereof, no further windows or dormer windows (other then those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed in any elevation (such expression to include the roof and wall) of the building hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason -To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

Informative Notes




48

ITEM NO 07APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00432/FAPPLICATION TYPE HouseholderSITE ADDRESS 5 Gordon Road South, Poole, BH12 1EF

PROPOSALS The construction of a two storey flat roofed extension to the rear and side. (Amended plans received 27/05/2014)

REGISTERED 9 April, 2014APPLICANT Mrs DraycottAGENT The Conversion Specialist

WARD Branksome East

CASE OFFICER Laura Archer

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr Rampton because of neighbours' concerns


THE PROPOSAL The construction of a two storey flat roofed extension to the rear and side.

MAIN ISSUES


design and appearance residential amenity

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is a two-storey detached dwelling house located within a residential cul-de-sac. The front garden area is gravel to facilitate off road car parking. The street is predominantly dwellings of a similar style and design.


5 Gordon Road South

Planning application to demolish the existing rear conservatory and single storey mono pitch extension. Construct new single storey mono pitched extension to rear and two storey extension to side (APP/10/01540/F). Refused for the following reason:-

The proposed extension by virtue of siting, scale, materials, style and roof form is

49

considered to disrupt the rhythm of development within the streetscene and is harmful to the character and setting of the streetscene and area. As such, the proposal fails to contribute positively to the character of the locality and is contrary to the provisions of Policy H12 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration (Adopted March 2004) (as amended by Secretary of State Direction September 2007) and Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009).

This decision was appealed and subsequently dismissed. The Inspector stated that:

largely filling the gap between these houses, the extension would detract from the existing pattern of development and its design would not complement that of the existing, traditional house...even appropriate materials would not overcome the harmful appearance of the proposed development...some of the other house in the road have been extended to the side, but circumstance vary from site to site and each proposal needs to be considered on its own merits...the extension at no.3 is more modest in size ; those at no.s 9 and 10 are two-storeys in height but set well back from the road at the head of the cul-de-sac...the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

15 Gordon Road South

2011: Planning application to erect a part 2-storey and part single storey extension to side/rear (Retrospective) (APP/11/00210/F). Refused for the following reason:-

The proposals, by reason of their design, scale, massing and height, fail to respect the existing building, would appear incongruous and add to a terracing effect that is out of character with and materially harmful to the streetscene of Gordon Road South. The proposals are therefore contrary to the provisions of PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted 2009 and H12 of the Poole Local Plan Adopted 2004 (as amended by the Secretary of State September 2007).

The application was allowed on appeal. The Inspector stated that:

The extra mass caused by the steeper slope is also not appreciable, nor is it obvious, from the ground, that the roof slope does not match that of the main roof of the house. If the roof were reduced to that already allowed, I do not consider there would be an appreciable improvement in terms of design or a reduction of the terracing effect. By allowing a roof up to the eaves of the house, the Council have already sacrificed the gap between the houses. This is different from the single storey extension across the road which is much lower, and clearly keeps the gap at the second storey level. The significant difference between this case and that refused on appeal at no 5 is the existing planning permission. For some reason the Council have already allowed a substantial extension to close the gap between the two houses which was not the case at No 5 and the differences between that allowed and that built do not have an impact on the existing traditional house.

2009: Erect extensions to the side and rear of property. Granted (APP/09/00478/F).

2009: Convert existing garage and storage area on ground floor to habitable accommodation with a lipped roof to rear and erect first floor extension at side above

50

garage (APP/09/38972/000/F). Refused for the following reason:

The proposed side extension would appear out of character with the existing dwelling and would substantially close the existing gap between buildings, resulting in a terracing effect, which would disrupt the rhythm of development in the streetscene and be harmful to its character and appearance. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy H12 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration (Adopted March 2004) (as amended by Secretary of State Direction September 2007) and Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted 2009).


Pre-application advice was sought in 2011 in respect of a side and rear extension (PREA/11/00137). In the letter of response dated 07/09/2011 it was advised that the proposals were unlikely to be supported as the design of the roof fails to integrate with the existing property and it would not be set back sufficiently enough to lessen the impact upon the streetscene and character of the area. It was suggested that setting the extension back and providing a traditional two-storey extension may be more acceptable.


Neighbour notifications.

CONSULTATIONS

None.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of objection have been received from 5 adjacent households in which the following concerns are raised:

the design would not complement or integrate with the existing traditional houses would not be in keeping and not respect the setting or character of the site and

established pattern of development would form a terracing effect referring as in the previously refused application at No.5 the Inspector at no.15 commented that allowing that appeal would not prevent the

Council from refusing other applications which sought to close the gaps between the houses in Gordon Road South

would be highly visible to neighbours impacting upon their amenity, resulting in a loss of light; outlook and privacy

would be large, overbearing, imposing, unattractive and unsightly

Concerns were also raised about of managing rainwater; subsidence; views; and the Party Wall Act.


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

51

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT



PCS23 Local Distinctiveness


Development Management Policies:DM1 Design

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The amended plans (received 27/05/2014) propose a part two-storey, part single-storey extension to the rear and side of the dwelling. The house already has single storey lean-to extensions. The proposed two-storey extension would project 3.1 metres from the rear wall of the original building with the single storey extension projecting a further 400mm.

The proposed extension would wrap around the rear of the building and project to the side of the dwelling by 1.2 m. extending 2.0m. along the side elevation. It would be visible within the streetscene of Gordon Road South, however, being set back from the front elevation of the dwelling by 6.5 m. it would not be readily apparent and a gap between no.5 and no.6 would be retained. This would not give rise to a significant 'terracing' effect within the streetscene.

The design and materials of the proposed extension would complement the existing. The walls of the extension would be rendered matching the existing upper floor and although the roof of the extension would be flat, it would incorporate a false pitch to reflect and integrate it into the existing character of the house.

Gordon Road South slopes up into the cul-de-sac and the levels across the application site are higher than at no.4 and lower than no.6. The extension are likely to appear higher to the neighbouring occupants of No.4. The proposed extensions would also be sited due south of No.4, and given this orientation is likely to result in some increased overshadowing to this neighbouring property. There are windows both in the first floor rear elevation of the No.4, and also at ground level in the rear wall and roof of the existing lean-to extension and these would would receive less sunlight during the early afternoon when the sun is low. This is not likely to be so marked as to be materially harm the amenities of the neighbouring occupants, taking into account the limited period of the day which would be affected and that the windows would still have daylight throughout the day.

The proposed two-storey extension would project deeper into the site than no.4, however

52

this relationship is not considered to be harmful or overly dominant taking into account the resultant projection of the two-storey extension and separation distance between the two properties. At ground floor level, there is an existing a wall/fencing along the boundary and at first floor level, the extension would not materially harm the aspect from a first floor rear window at no.4.

There would be a smaller separation distance between the proposed extension and neighbouring property no.6 however, the rear wall of no.6 currently projects deeper into the site than no.4. The extension would not extend within the reasonable outlook of the first floor windows on the rear elevation of no.6 and whilst the extensions would be visible from the conservatory to the rear of no.6, this would not be materially harmful to the amenities of the occupants. Since the extension would be north of no.6 it would not give rise to any overshadowing of this property.

Windows proposed in the front and rear elevations would be at an oblique angle to No.4 and No.6 which is an acceptable relationship in terms of preserving the privacy of neighbouring occupants.


Not applicable.


Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposals would respect the setting and character of the site, surrounding area and adjoining buildings and would reasonably preserve the amenities of neighbouring occupants.


Conditions




4. GN100 (No Further Windows in Specified Elevatio)Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any subsequent re-enactments thereof, no further windows (other then those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed in the side elevations (north and south) of the extension hereby permitted, unless

53

otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason -To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

Informative Notes


54

ITEM NO 08APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00574/FAPPLICATION TYPE HouseholderSITE ADDRESS 45A Lulworth Avenue, Poole, BH15 4DH

PROPOSALS Form new roof raising ridge height to accommodate additional living accommodation and two storey extension incorporating garage to side of dwelling house. Refurbish and update front facade.

REGISTERED 7 May, 2014APPLICANT Mr & Mrs BoswellAGENT Mr K Flack

WARD Hamworthy East


INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Parkinson because of residents concerns about loss of amenity and impact on the street scene.


THE PROPOSAL

Form new roof raising ridge height to accommodate additional living accommodation and two storey extension incorporating garage to side of dwelling house. Refurbish and update front façade.

MAIN ISSUES


· The impact on the character of the area · The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is occupied by a two-storey detached house. The area is residential in nature and has a mixture of dwelling sizes and designs. Many houses in the road have been extended, altered and modernised giving the area a mixed character. The properties immediately adjacent to the site consist of a modernised chalet bungalow (no.47) and a detached bungalow (no.45).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY May 2013: Form new roof raising ridge height to accommodate additional living

55

accommodation within, add single garage to side and refurbish front facade. Refused (APP/13/00329/F)

July 2013: Retrospective application for garden room constructed to the rear boundary of garden. Approved (APP/13/00568/F)

November 2013: Raise ridge height of roof to form living accommodation. Erect single storey pitched roofed side extension to form garage with store above. Alterations to front façade.Refused and Appeal Dismissed (APP/13/01138/F) Reason for refusal: The proposed extension and the resultant dwelling would fail to preserve the character of the site and the surrounding area by virtue of its height, scale and design. The proposed extension would also cause harm to the outlook of the occupiers of No.47, by virtue of its design, height and proximity. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) as supported by the Borough of Poole Characterisation Study (April 2010) and Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document DPD (Adopted April 2012).


October 2013: Pre-application advice was given for a different scheme following the refusal of the scheme in May 2013.

March 2014: Informal pre-application advice given suggesting that the current scheme would go a long way to addressing the previous reason for refusal and the issues raised in the Inspector's decision notice.


None.

CONSULTATIONS

Network Rail - no objection.

REPRESENTATIONS 4 letters of objection received from 3 local residents raising concerns including:

the impact on the light of neighbouring properties; the impact on the mental and physical health of the neighbours; the size, massing and scale and the overbearing nature of the resultant building; the proposals would be in close proximity to the chimney of the neighbouring property

at No.45.


56

POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT

The following policies are listed as applying to this application:



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

PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The current application follows a previous refusal and appeal decision. The previously refused scheme included raising the existing ridge height by 1.13 m. and a side extension with a cat slide roof, as well as a side dormer and two gable ends. The reason for the refusal of that scheme was as follows: The proposed extension and the resultant dwelling would fail to preserve the character of the site and the surrounding area by virtue of its height, scale and design. The proposed extension would also cause harm to the outlook of the occupiers of No.47, by virtue of its design, height and proximity. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) as supported by the Borough of Poole Characterisation Study (April 2010) and Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document DPD (Adopted April 2012). In their decision notice, the Planning Inspector for the previous application stated that: Whilst I accept that there is a mix of housing types and styles in the area with no particular style dominating the area, I cannot agree that the appeal proposal would be seen as development that would be appropriate or sensitively designed in its context. Rather, I consider that the appeal proposal would result in a dwelling that would be incongruous in the street scene and with a roofscape that by virtue of its size, mass and pitch would appear as over dominant and overbearing. The proposed extension would appear as if it were a partial catslide roof and it would be wholly at odds with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I conclude on this main issue that the proposed extension would harm the character and appearance of the area'. The current scheme differs from the previously refused scheme in the following key respects:

57

The proposed house would only be 700mm higher than the existing at its highest

point. The front gable is now hipped. The cat slide roof has been replaced by a two-storey side extension that is set back

from the front of the existing house, with a lower ridge height. As a result of the change in the design of the extensions, the roof has been reduced in size, mass and pitch and this reduction would ensure that the resultant house would preserve the existing character of the street, especially given that the existing property is a two-storey house. Furthermore, the two storey side-extension would appear subservient to the existing property as it would be set back from the front of the house and at a lower height than the main ridge, and would not appear at odds with the character of the area as the previously proposed catslide roof would have done. That the roof would be hipped to the front further reduces the impact of the extensions within the street scene. These changes to the design and scale of the roof would ensure that the resultant house would respect the setting and character of the site and adjoining buildings by virtue of its height and appearance and as such complies with the provisions of Policy PCS23.

Part of the reason for the refusal of the previous scheme was that the proposed extended property would be overly dominant when viewed from No.47, since the cat slide roof would have ended very close to the dormer windows on the side elevation of that property. The Planning Inspector did not however agree that the impact on the neighbouring property at No.47 would be unacceptable and concluded that: Although the side extension element of the appeal proposal would extend the dwelling almost to the boundary with No 47, it appears that two of the facing windows in No 47 are bathroom windows with obscure glazing. Furthermore, one window appears to serve a bedroom which has a larger window overlooking the back garden. Whilst the view from this bedroom would be altered, it would not, in my view, be to a materially harmful extent. The effect of the proposal on the occupiers of No 47 would therefore accord with Policies PCS23 and DM1. Given the design and scale of the extensions proposed by this current application and the comments of the Inspector for the previous scheme, the proposals could not be considered as causing material harm to the light, outlook or privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No.47.

The current proposals still include a dormer window on the west elevation adjacent to No.45. This window would serve a stairway and can therefore reasonably be obscure glazed by condition to ensure no loss of privacy to No.45. Given the slope of the roof on the west side there would be no material harm caused in terms of the impact on the light, outlook or privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No.45. The previous discrepancies on the block plan have been noted and the actual form of No.45 has been viewed on the site visit. The location of the chimney has also been noted but this would not in itself constitute a reason for refusal in planning terms. The relationship of the proposed resultant building at No.45a with its neighbour at No.45 would be no worse than in the previous application. The Planning Inspector did not consider that relationship impact as causing material harm, and for the reasons above this is still considered to be

58

the case.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given in the Planning Judgement section above, the proposals are considered to comply with the provisions of the relevant policies in the Core Strategy and the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD. RECOMMENDATIONIt is therefore recommended that this application be Grant with Conditions subject to the following:

Conditions



3. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the dormer window on the west elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass in a form sufficient to prevent external views and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of opening.



Informative Notes


59

ITEM NO 09APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00507/FAPPLICATION TYPE HouseholderSITE ADDRESS 17 Avalon, Poole, BH14 8HT

PROPOSALS Alterations and extensions to the existing dwelling.REGISTERED 24 April, 2014APPLICANT Mr & Mrs HamelAGENT David James Architects and associates

WARD Penn Hill

CASE OFFICER Chloe Harrod

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr Parker because of the concerns of nearby residents


THE PROPOSAL Alterations and extensions to the existing dwelling.

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to whether the proposal compliments the existing house, whether it compliments the street scene and integrates well, whether there would be any impact upon neighbouring privacy and amenities, and whether there would be any impact upon protected trees on the site.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is a two storey detached house with integral garage situated at the end of a wholly residential cul-de-sac. The house shares a split driveway with neighbouring properties at no's. 16 and 18. The house is set back from and elevated above the adjacent highway. In common with many other houses in Avalon, there is a front terrace above the integral garage. The house is white rendered with a 1970's architectural style, and all properties have a pitched roof. The rear garden consists of patio directly to the rear of the house with steps up to a lawned area which slopes up towards the rear boundary.


17 Avalon

No relevant planning history.

60

8 Avalon

2004: Raise the roof height with provision of dormers and velux windows to form 2 bedrooms at first floor level. Granted and implemented (APP/03/23369/001/F)

9 Avalon

2001: Raise the roof on the west facing elevation to form a studio, with dormer window and balcony and a bedroom with ensuite facilities in the space created. Granted but never implemented (APP/01/23368/001/F)

2007: Raise ridge to form first floor accommodation and form dormer with balcony at rear. Erect new raised terrace at rear. Refused (APP/07/23368/002/F)

2008: Form new roof with raised ridge with dormers at rear. Single storey rear extension with balcony above. Granted but not implemented (APP/08/23368/003/F)

2011: Alteration to roof to form additional living accommodation in roof space, bay window to rear. Granted and implemented (APP/11/00577/F)

10 Avalon

2004: Alterations to roof to provide additional living accommodation at first floor level. Granted and implemented (APP/04/23367/003/F)

16 Avalon

2009: Extension at first floor level on balcony over existing ground floor garage and utility room, new entrance porch with balcony extended over. Refused (APP/09/00989/F)

2010: Erect side extension at first floor level and construct new entrance porch with existing balcony over. Granted and partially implemented (APP/10/00066/F)

24 Avalon

2004: Alterations and additions to roof to provide additional living accommodation at first floor level. Refused (APP/04/23304/001/F)

2005: Alterations to roof to provide additional living accommodation and balcony (revised scheme). Refused and dismissed at appeal (APP/05/23304/002/F)

2006: Replacement of balcony screening at upper ground floor level. Granted and implemented (APP/06/23304/003/F)

25 Avalon

2006: Erect a part 2/part first floor side rear extension. Granted and implemented (APP/06/23366/002/F)

61

26 Avalon

2001: Convert existing integral garage into a family room. Erect single storey and 1/2 storey extensions at the side and rear to form a utility room, conservatory and dining room extension with bedroom over. Erect new double garage. Granted and implemented (APP/00/23365/002/F)


None.

CONSULTATIONS

Neighbouring properties were notified by letter, and a site notice was placed on a footpath at the rear of the property.

REPRESENTATIONS

Eight letters of representation have been received; 3 letters of support and 5 letters of objection.

The letters of support states that the development would be a great enhancement for the road and would help bring the road more in line with surrounding areas like Sandbanks; would lose the "estate" appearance of the road; would dramatically improve the look of the property which must be considered positive for the street scene and local area; and would also be in keeping with the nearby properties of Sandbanks.

The letters of objection object on the grounds that:

disruption and inconvenience to residents proposed alteration is incongruous to the established conservation, appearance and

character of Avalon the use of glass and aluminium would make No.17 the only property in the cul-de-sac

to alter its appearance using this construction method, and will cause excessive glare onto properties that face directly onto it

extending No.17 to a full three storey property will be inconsistent with other properties and its raised hillside location would make it visibly and physically dominant in size over adjacent and opposite properties

the plans do not give a true representation of the affects of the alterations in size and domination

the proposed dwelling is of a totally different design giving it an appearance and character completely out of keeping with adjoining properties

the roof line appears to be higher than neighbouring properties, having an adverse impact upon their privacy

it is not in keeping with the current streetscene parking and access of works vehicles needs to be considered as part of the application


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

62

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


LOCAL CONTEXT





Development Management Policies:DM1 Design PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The proposal seeks extensions and alterations, including a two-storey rear extension; a part single and part two-storey side extension; a second floor; and a single storey front extension including an extension of the first floor terrace. The proposal would create a house with quite a different appearance to the other properties in Avalon. However, the unique location of this plot at the end of the cul-de-sac and its set back from the highway means that it is not particularly prominent in the street scene of Avalon. Together with the neighbouring properties at 16 and 18 Avalon this 'corner' of Avalon is not visible until at the end of the cul-de-sac.

The proposals maintain the first floor 'eaves' line and rendered elevations that the two neighbouring properties have, and this element of the proposal would integrate well into the street scene. The most prominent addition is the introduction of a second floor. The second floor would be set back from the front of the house and inset on either side with a small terrace in front. Whilst the second floor would increase the height of the property above the two neighbouring properties, the orientation of all three properties are different, reflecting their corner location. This would reduce the visual impact of proposed 1.2m. height increase. Whilst the street comprises properties that are very similar in appearance, they have little architectural merit. It is considered that the relatively uniform but non-descript character of Avalon does not outweigh the changing character of the area, and whilst this proposal may be different to the surrounding houses, they would be in keeping with the emerging character of the wider area and would not be materially harmful to the existing streetscene or character of the area.

The extensions proposed at the rear of the property do not impact upon the streetscene and integrate well into the existing house. The first floor side extension above the existing garage and utility room would also integrate well into the existing house. The single storey front extension would be a maximum depth of 4.3m and a minimum depth of 0.8m, diagonally receding from the edge of the existing garage. Whilst the materials would be different, this element would not be impact significantly on the streetscene given its single

63

storey nature and setback from the road.

New windows are proposed on the rear extensions. There would be no loss of privacy to neighbouring properties from the ground floor windows, and the first floor windows would potentially increase the privacy enjoyed by no.16 by being deeper into the plot. The proposed second floor windows would be at the same depth as the existing first floor windows, and would have some views into the rear of no.16, but it would not be considered detrimentally harmful to the privacy of the occupiers of no.16 as there are already views to this area of the garden from the existing first floor windows. There may be some limited views towards no.18, but any views gained would not be considered harmful to the privacy of that neighbour.

The terrace at first floor at the front would be extended above the single storey extension and would be nearer to no.16. Whilst this could give rise to increased overlooking, there is nevertheless already extensive mutual overlooking between the terraces of 16 and18. The terrace has been designed so that the new part close to no.16 is narrower, which would not encourage use of this area, whilst still providing reasonable separation between the two terraces. An obscure glazed privacy screen would be provided to the north west elevation. The proposed terrace at second floor would look out over the cul-de-sac as the existing first floor terrace already does. Potential overlooking to the rear of no.16 is addressed by an obscure glazed screen and such a screen could also be secured to reduce overlooking to the rear garden of no.18. The flat roof areas proposed at first floor to the north east and south east would be for maintenance access only and can be conditioned as such.

The first floor side extension and the small two storey rear extension behind the existing garage would not cause any overshadowing to no.18. The single storey extension to the front of the house would not impact upon neighbouring amenity. The two storey rear extension adjacent to the boundary with no.16 would be 2.1m in depth and would be situated on an existing area of terrace, and a new terrace would be constructed in front with a new retaining wall. The extension would cause a small amount of overshadowing to part of the rear garden of No.16 until the middle of the day, but this would not be materially harmful to the amenities of the occupier of no.16. The second floor, being inset slightly, would not cause a larger shadow than the existing house causes to No.16, and therefore would not be materially harmful to the amenities of no's.16 or 18.

The site is covered a Tree Preservation Order. Whilst there are trees on site, the proposed development would have no impact upon these trees. A condition can be attached to erect protective fencing as shown on the Tree Protection Plan.


Not applicable.


Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

64

The proposals, by way of design, scale and location, would compliment the existing house and the neighbouring houses, and would not detrimentally harm the street scene. There would be no harm to neighbouring amenities, and obscure glazed screens can be conditioned to ensure no detrimental loss of privacy, and there would be no harm to protected trees on site, therefore this proposal is recommended for approval.


Conditions


2. GN040 (Match Materials to the Existing Building)

3. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony)

4. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Details of all balustrading at first and second floor level shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Where indicated on the approved plans this shall incorporate obscure glazing to a height of not less than 1.8m. high above the adjacent terrace level. Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the balustrading shall be provided and retained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


5. TR070 (Tree Protection - Protective Fencing)


Informative Notes


65

ITEM NO 10APPLICATION NO. APP/14/00431/FAPPLICATION TYPE HouseholderSITE ADDRESS 76 Compton Avenue, Poole, BH14 8PY

PROPOSALS Erect a two/three storey extension at rear to form basement, balcony above and new habitable accommodation (amended plans received 11/04/14, 12/05/14 and 13/05/14).

REGISTERED 4 April, 2014APPLICANT South Shore LtdAGENT Greenward Associates

WARD Penn Hill

CASE OFFICER Chloe Harrod

INTRODUCTIONThis application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr Parker due to resident's concerns.


THE PROPOSAL Erect a two/three storey extension at rear to form basement, balcony above and new habitable accommodation.

MAIN ISSUES

The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to whether the proposal compliments the character of the house, whether it has any impact upon the street scene, whether there would be any impact upon neighbouring privacy and amenities.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is a two storey detached house with attached garage and a block paved drive to the front of the property with off-road parking for at least three cars. The rear of the house has a lean-to conservatory with raised decking, with steps down to a further area of raised decking, and further steps down to the rear garden. Boundary treatments consist of an approximately 1.8m. high fence to no.74 and a hedge and various shrubs which vary in height to No.78.


2003: Erect a conservatory at the rear and a storm cover over the front door. Granted and implemented (APP/03/06296/F)

66

2013: Erection of outbuilding. Deemed to be Permitted Development and implemented.(PD/13/00161)


PREA/13/00126 - Two storey rear extension. The location and orientation of the proposals were acceptable; however there was concern over the size of the proposed decked area to the rear of the extensions.


None.

CONSULTATIONS

Neighbouring properties were notified by letter.

REPRESENTATIONS

Three representations have been received from, and on behalf of, the neighbouring property at No.74. Two were received on consideration of the original plans received, and one was received on consideration of the amended plans. The following concerns have been raised in respect of the amended plans:

The height, bulk, mass, scale and rear projection of the double height structure is overbearing and overly dominant

The rear projection of the single storey basement staircase structure is too deep Loss of natural daylight to a kitchen window No cross sectional diagram has been provided showing the relationship between their

property and the proposed development Overlooking and loss of privacy Inaccuracy of the east elevation, unclear measurements and the boundary fence is

misleading and inaccurate There should be a planning condition for the applicant to submit detailed plans on how

the basement would be dug, and how drainage issues would be considered There would be increased noise caused by the proposed folding doors at basement

and ground floor No build timescales have been provided and there is concerns about access to their

property and security during this period Works would have to be carried out to minimise disruption and ensure there is no

damage to their property the revised plans do not go far enough to mitigate the impact on them


POLICY AND GUIDANCE

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

67


LOCAL CONTEXT





Development Management Policies:DM1 Design PLANNING JUDGEMENT

The proposal is to demolish the existing conservatory and decking to the rear of the house and construct a two storey rear extension with basement and a single storey side extension with basement access. The design and matching render would allow the extensions to integrate well into the existing house. The size of the two storey extension is consistent with the neighbouring properties at no’s 74 and 78 Compton Avenue. The side extension would be subservient to the garage on the south elevation, reducing the bulk and scale of the side extension on the south elevation. The extensions would not be visible in the street scene, and whilst the windows are proposed to be changed on the front (west) elevation, these would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

Windows proposed on the north and south elevation at first floor all serve en-suites or bathrooms. The proposed window and door at ground floor level on the north elevation would not cause any harm to the neighbouring privacy and amenity at no.78. The proposed windows on the east (rear) elevation would look out onto the rear garden. The bi-fold doors at basement level would not cause any harm to neighbouring privacy as they would be at a level that does not allow overlooking into the neighbouring properties. The ground floor bi-fold doors would give rise to some overlooking to both adjacent properties, but would not be considered harmful as there is an existing decking area which already allows overlooking at oblique angles into the neighbouring properties, notwithstanding the presence of privacy screens. The proposed decking beyond the bi-fold doors at ground floor level would be situated beyond the rear building line of both adjacent neighbours, and would potentially have harmful views into key amenity areas. Obscure glazed screens to the north and south elevations should therefore be secured by condition to prevent loss of privacy to these neighbours.

The proposed obscure glazing of the lower panels of the large first floor windows in the rear elevation would reduce overlooking from them. These windows are deeper into the plot than the current first floor windows, which would potentially improve privacy at the rear of the two adjacent properties. The proposed ‘velux’ window would allow light into the hallway at first floor, without giving rise to overlooking of the adjacent home.

The rear extension would be to the north of the neighbour at no.74, and would therefore

68

cause no overshadowing to that property. There would be some additional overshadowing to no.78, particularly during the late morning, but this would not be so marked as to be materially harmful to the amenities of the occupiers.

Whilst the two storey rear extension would cause some loss of light to the kitchen window at no. 74 and would change the outlook from this window, it is not considered that the proposal would be overbearing since the two-storey element would be some 4.2m from the kitchen window. Whilst the outlook from this window on the north elevation would be reduced, it is nevertheless a secondary window to the kitchen, and a larger kitchen window on the east elevation looks out onto the rear garden.

The neighbours at no.74 also raise concerns over the single storey side extension and its overbearing, and detrimental, impact upon their property. The side extension would extend approximately half way across the kitchen window, and whilst this part of the proposal is closer to the boundary with no.74, it is inset from the boundary, and would be situated 2.2m from the kitchen window. The wall height would be lower than the wall height of the garage, and there would be a sloping roof down towards the boundary which would soften the appearance of the side elevation of the side extension visible above the boundary fence. These design features were included in the amended plans to reduce the impact of the side extension on no.74. It is therefore considered that the side extension would not be detrimentally harmful to the amenities of the neighbours at no.74. Moreover, no element of the proposed development would in itself give rise to any markedly increased noise or disturbance to any adjacent resident.


Not applicable.


Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

The proposals would compliment the existing house and would not impact upon the street scene. There would be no harmful loss of privacy to neighbours, and there would be no detrimental harm to neighbouring amenities, therefore this proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND PAPERS


Conditions


2. GN040 (Match Materials to the Existing Building)

69

3. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the windows at first floor on the north and south elevations, and the bottom panes of the windows at first floor on the east elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass in a form sufficient to prevent external views and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of opening.


4. AA01 (Non standard Condition)Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the balustrading at ground floor on the north and south elevations shall be glazed with obscure glass.



Informative Notes


70