Everyone 7 128 2162 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 0 0
Decision Contributors
Contact Officer
rep_exe_IDsNo No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 06/09/2011 09:30:51 Chief Executive Old 80 1 Chief Executive
PLANNING COMMITTEE
6th September, 2011
Agenda Item
6
Public Report
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
1.
PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Purpose of Report:
To consider the planning applications contained within the
schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or
requested deferred applications, if any.
Recommendations:
It is RECOMMENDED that:
the applications contained in this schedule be
determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with
the Development Manager's recommendation.
Lead Members:
Cllr S Tong
Contact Officer:
Neil Lancaster, Development Control Manager
2.
Application Schedule
No.
1.
Application No.
3/11/0310/COU
Site Address
8 Matchams Close, Matchams, Ringwood
Pg.
2
2.
3/11/0589/HOU
41 Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne
10
3.
3/11/0590/FUL
Hampreston Church Of England First School,
Hampreston Village, Wimborne
14
4.
3/11/0637/FUL
Moors Valley Country Park, Ashley Heath,
Ringwood
17
5.
3/11/0647/HOU
4 Stanfield Road, Ferndown, Dorset
19
6.
3/11/0664/FUL
Green Lane, Longham, Ferndown
22
7.
3/11/0666/HOU
Green Pastures, Hinton Martell, Wimborne
29
8.
3/11/0667/LBC
Green Pastures, Hinton Martell, Wimborne
37
9.
3/11/0678/FUL
Land Off Bingham Close, Verwood, Dorset
45
10. 3/11/0706/HOU
134 Bridle Way, Colehill, Wimborne
51
11. 3/11/0735/FUL
Visitors Centre, Moors Valley Country Park,
Ashley Heath
54
1
Item Number:
1.
3/11/0310/COU
Ref:
Proposal:
Retrospective Change of Use of Dwelling House to a Mixed
Use as a Dwelling House and a Massage/Fitness Business
Together With Relief From Condition 3 of 3/97/0365
Site Address:
8 Matchams Close, Matchams, Ringwood, for Mrs S Hutter
Constraints
Area of Great Landscape Value LP Article 4 Directions
Green Belt LP
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
4 August 2011
St Leonards And St Ives
Parish Council Comments:
Object - Inappropriate use of a dwelling in quiet
established residential area. Clear breach of
planning approval. The planning permission was
given for this whole development before
construction removing permitted development
rights for good reason. The planning condition
would have been known to the applicants before
purchasing the property. Concern that this will set
a precedent. The layout and design of this modern
development means that the additional parking as
a result of this business, is an issue to other
residents.
If the officer is at Variance we would like this to go
to Committee.
Consultee Responses:
County Highways Development
Liaison Officer
28 July 2011
No objection.
Neighbour Comments:
Mr Marc Ladle 10 Matchams My objection is based on maintaining the
Close, Matchams
Residential Amenity of the Matchams Close
development. Whilst for the most part, the
business in question has a relatively low impact, I
would prefer that it remains a completely
residential site so this is always the case.
John Parker By Email,
I have no fundamental objection to this proposed
change of use.
However, I have two concerns that I would like to
have taken into account:
1) The number of cars/visitors. There have been
occasions when a significant number of cars have
been parked up the Close and down the road at
2
the top of the hill. I have some concerns about
safety and also know this has caused some
distress to a number of my neighbours who live
closer to no 8. There should be clear
parameters/limits set on this if the application is
allowed.
2) If permission is granted, this should not be
allowed to set a precedent for further applications
for change of use. I have no objection to people
working from home but there would be an issue if
further applications were allowed that would
essentially change the nature of the Close from
residential housing to more significant mixed use
that would attract further vehicles to what is a
narrow, confined space with limited room for
public/visitor parking; also that in future other
applications, if allowed on a precedential basis,
could result in commercial vehicles parking and/or
operating from one or more premises. This would
fundamentally change the nature of the area.
Whilst I am given to understand that
considerations about property values bear no
significance
in
planning
considerations,
nevertheless if the nature of the area were to
change this could depress property values - this is
a material concern for me.
FURTHER EMAIL RECEIVED 2.8.11
With reference to my previous email of 29 July, I
understand that my comments have been placed
on record as neutral. I would like to amend my
submission to:
OBJECTION
I have a number of concerns about the application
above that form the basis of an objection to the
proposal as it stands:
1) The number of cars/visitors. There have been
occasions when a significant number of cars have
been parked up the Close and down the road at
the top of the hill. I have some concerns about
safety (there are young children on the estate and
also know this has caused some distress to a
number of my neighbours who live closer to no 8.
There should be clear parameters/limits set on this
if the application were to be allowed.
2) Permission, if granted, would potentially set a
precedent for further applications for change of
use. I have no objection to people working from
home per se but this change of use to more
commercial use could change the nature of the
Close from residential housing to more significant
mixed use that would attract further vehicles to
3
what is a narrow, confined space with limited room
for public/visitor parking; also that, in future, other
applications, if allowed on a precedential basis,
could result in commercial vehicles parking and/or
operating from one or more premises. This would
fundamentally change the nature of the area,
which is in green belt.
Whilst I am given to understand that
considerations about property values bear no
significance
in
planning
considerations,
nevertheless if the nature of the area were to
change this could depress property values - this is
a material concern for me.
Mr & Mrs D & D Booth 20 Support
Matchams Close, Matchams
No impact on our property directly opposite which
would be the most affected.
Mr Colin Targett 1 Matchams No Objection
Close, Matchams
We live directly behind No. 8, and have never
been disturbed by any noise, the two or three cars
that do arrive park on a public road, and they have
all gone by 09.30, so what problem can that cause
anyone!!!! We have no objection at all.
Mr & Mrs Bryan 14 Matchams The following is a summary of e-mail letter
Close, Matchams
received 3.8.11:
Object
Property lies within the green belt.
Property is within a housing estate.
To allow a business to be run on a housing estate
that involves extra traffic would be detrimental to
existing property values and could be sold with
planning for non residential use.
Noise from the garage area can be heard
externally when passing the gym.
The house is rented and alternative renters could
bring different business to the area.
Mr David Booth 20 Matchams Support
Close, Matchams
I have read condition 3 on my Deed's I'm
confused, how can Mrs S Hutter be applying for
relief of condition 3 when it states that no
alterations that would give rise to the loss of the
integral garage shall be constructed. I know for a
fact that Mrs S Hutter has not constructed anything
internally within her garage that would interfere
with the parking of cars in her garage. she has
gym equipment that is movable by 1 person how
can this constitute a construction. She can open
the doors of her garage and can park in the
4
garage if she wishes. This can't be said for many
of the objectors in this application.
I believe you should drop the section about relief
from condition 3 as this clearly does not apply.
Also she has assured me and all the neighbours
that have objected and not objected that she has
no intention of altering the front of her garage in
anyway. You have never had any complaints
about noise generated in the gym either. As far as
traffic is concerned we have not experienced any
increase in traffic due to Mrs Hutter's activities.
However I would say that even if we had noticed
any increase as long as the vehicles had car tax
and were road legal, any car can park in our street.
Many others here have visitors with just as many
cars when they have there meetings and other get
togethers it has never been a problem before so
why would this change. She has been doing this
for a couple of years without a problem.
The majority of people who use the gym and it is
only first thing in the morning are all local who walk
to her home. She has helped Myself my wife and
many of the locals to keep fit. I personally have
lost 13kgs since I started training with her which in
truth will probably prolong my life. Let's not forget
we are talking about a mother and parent who is
doing her best to help support her family. She isn't
a high flying entrepreneur trying to build an empire
from her front room. Some common sense needs
to be applied here, and the objector's should
speak to and visit Mrs Hutter to view what she has
done with her garage and her beauty room and
maybe they would see some common sense also.
Objector's please take note.
Mrs D Booth, 20 Matchams I would like to add to my earlier comment
Close, Matchams
regarding the this planning application , My
Husband is Diabetic and since he has started
training with Sam Hutter he has lost weight and is
totally controlled with medication & exercise , I
know this would not have happened if he had to
drive to a gym. I feel that this application should be
granted as it really has no effect on the close in
any way,
you cannot see the gym and anyone that does use
it arrives and leaves the property in a very quite
manner.
With regard to increase of traffic, this really has no
effect on the close and it is only for a short time in
the morning anyway. who is to say that any
increase of traffic is solely going to no 8. We all
5
have visitors and they all arrive by car as because
of where we live. I do feel the objections are very
harsh as all Sam Hutter is trying to do is to help
people and she is very passionate at what she
does encouraging people to diet and get fit is
saving the NHS money in the long term. Therefore
I feel planning should be granted.
Miss Claire Genge Longham I'm writing to support Samantha Hutter in her
Court
Coach House Mews, application for the beauty / gym business that she
Ferndown
is running, I personally use both sides of her
business, and have lost 2 stone in weight,
dropping from a size 16 to a 10! I even completed
a full marathon in January, a life long dream of
mine, which I had written off. I would not have
done any of this without Sammy's support and
encouragement, I'm no public gym goer! When
attending the gym I park at number 20, my
boyfriends parents house, therefore causing no
obstruction or concern to neighbours. We are
often visiting the street to see the Booths at
number 20, and see no real difference in the
number of cars at any time of day. Matchams
close backs onto open woodland and many dog
walkers park at the top of the hill to walk their
dogs, as a public road they have the right to do
this, as do the people visiting the gym. The gym
isn't large enough to attract many visitors at any
one time, and the beauty side will only be one
person at a time. Sammy should be applauded for
the business that she has set up, helping so many
people in different ways, she is very passionate
about what she does which shows in the waist
bands of those attending the gym!
Mrs
Andrea
Purdy
10 I was recommended to the proposed applicant by
Broadshard Lane, Ringwood
my Medical Consultant - I have an auto immune
disease that makes it necessary to exercise in an
environment that is small and discreet. I park on
the top of the hill, which according to my map is a
public road. I have fully paid road tax which
therefore surely allows me to park my car there? I
am not outside anybody's property and cause no
exit or entry problems to the Close. I am amazed
at all the negative comments directed to a
proposed business - there is no "shop" front with
flashing neon gym signs displayed outside, no
windows, in fact to look at the Close for the first
time it would be hard for a stranger to identify
which house it was! We live in a country that has
been declared the most obese in the whole of
6
Europe and we are in an economic state that
should the applicant not work, would need to claim
benefits.
Shouldn't we be looking at this
application in a more positive light? Through going
to this exercise group I have made many friends
on the Close - where do the neighbours that
object, suggest I should park if I go to visit them?
Couldn't these neighbours work with the applicant
to find the solutions necessary so that everyone
could benefit from this application? I live in hope
that this application is passed.
Brian Frecknall 17 Matchams Object
Close, Matchams
This is a residential area and I would like it to stay
that way, also the removal of Clause 3 could lead
to a fundamental change in the character of the
Close.
Ms Helen Thomas 1 Matchams I understand concern re: business use but as with
Close, Matchams
all rules and regulations there are always
circumstances for a degree of commonsense
when looking into each issue and the pros and
cons each present. As such I feel the beauty
business has no impact on the neighbourhood and
as for the comment regarding commercial vehicles
- that is a complete fabrication. As for the garage
issue or fitness area - Are any of us really using
our garages for cars these days? This issue would
affect most if not all of us nowadays. A more
important and indeed relevant point is surely here
we have a lady who as a working mother is
providing for her family in these very difficult times
and working within the limitation presented by
being a mother. She is not a financial burden to
the state like so many other people these days.
Quite honestly we should applaud all working
mother and not exaggerate petty issues which
could so easily be sorted out. I have always
regarded the close, friendly neighbourhood we
enjoy here as one of the loveliest parts of living
here and know full well that had any of the
neighbours with problems gone to no. 8 they would
have been sorted out immediately. Of the very few
non residents who come to no. 8 the majority park
in a public road and any problems that may have
arisen before will now be addressed.
May I
respectfully suggest a proper visit to see for
yourselves the peace and calm we have here at all
times of the day.
7
Officers Report:
This application is bought before Members at the request of Councillor Warman and
because the case officer's recommendation is in variance to the Parish Council’s
view.
Site Description
The application site at 8 Matchams Close is a detached two storey dwelling with an
integral double garage and two parking spaces situated in a quiet residential cul de
sac within the Green Belt. The dwelling forms part of a group of 22 properties granted
in the late 1990’s located at the top of a steep access road off Hurn Road on what
was formerly the site of a country house hotel.
Proposal
The application submitted in retrospect seeks to regularise the unauthorised use of
the dwelling to run the applicants massage/fitness business. The double garage is in
use as a small gym and exercise area available for clients. The study in the main
dwelling is also used as a therapy room where sports massages and various beauty
treatments including facials and pedicures are conducted when the gym is not in use.
The retrospective change of use of the property is the subject of a planning
application for two reasons. One being the change of use of the dwellinghouse to
mixed use as a dwellinghouse and beauty/fitness business and the other being the
conversion of the garage which was restricted under a condition of the original
consent of the estate. Condition 3 attached to planning permission 3/97/0365 states:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no
alterations that would give rise to the loss of the integral garage shall be constructed
without express planning permission first being obtained”.
The reason for the attached condition was “to ensure car parking provision is
maintained on the site”.
Considerations
The main issues to be considered are the impact of the change of use on the
character and residential amenities of the area. The actual use as a gym inside the
double garage and the beauty treatments in the study is not considered to create any
harm in relation to noise in itself due to the activities being carried out in the building.
The main issues to be considered are the number of clients visiting the property and
the generated traffic and parking concerns.
It is claimed that the use commenced June 2010. Information provided by the
applicant in the form of extracts from her appointment book, show that the gym
related part of the business operates most mornings apart from Tuesday and
Sunday. The appointment book shows that on average between three and four
clients use the gym per hour. It also shows that many of the clients come from
8
Matchams Close itself and therefore arrive on foot. The beauty and massage part of
the business takes place in the afternoons where individual clients are seen.
At the time of writing, 11 representations have been received in relation to the
application, seven in support and four in objection. Four of the letters of support
appear to be from clients of the business.
It is represented through the provision of the annotated appointment book that some
of the clients live in the close and probably walk to the property where the remainder
live elsewhere and travel by car.
The general level of activity represented in the copy of the appointment book
suggests that potentially the gym activity may generate a maximum of four clients per
hour and there is potential if all clients travel by car that this may cause some level of
disturbance. However, given that the gym use is being carried out for a short period
of time of up to three hours a day, five days a week, the level of impact is considered
to be acceptable.
The level of activity and harm created from the beauty side of the business is less of
a concern due to individuals visiting the premises to receive treatments rather than
multiple clients at one time. Indeed, given the low key nature of this part of the
business it is considered that on its own, it is unlikely to require planning permission.
The Council is generally supportive of the creation and fostering of small businesses
but only in situations where the impact of that use does not harm the area. It is
considered that in this instance the business could be controlled effectively by
restricting the hours of operation for clients using the gym; limiting to the area of the
dwelling used for the business and making the permission personal to the applicant.
It is therefore recommended that the application is approved under a temporary
permission for one year subject to a number of conditions in order to monitor the
impact created from the business.
Recommendation:
GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:1.
This permission shall enure solely for the benefit of the applicant, Mrs
Samantha Hutter and not for the benefit of the land to which the application
relates.
Reason: The Council has had regard to the nature and level of the business
undertaken by the applicant.
2.
The use of the gym hereby permitted shall only operate between 7.30am and
11.30am Monday to Saturday and not on Sundays or Bank or other National
Public Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and adjoining and nearby
residential properties.
9
3.
This permission shall expire on 30 September 2012; by which date the use of
part of the dwelling for a massage / fitness business shall have been
discontinued.
Reason: In order to assess the impact of the business on the surrounding
residential area over the trial period.
4.
The use hereby permitted shall be restricted to the garage and treatment room
indicated on the approved plan and no other part of the dwelling.
Reason: In order to limit the level and extent of the business operating from
this dwelling given the residential character of the area.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: DES8 DES2
Item Number:
2.
Ref:
3/11/0589/HOU
Proposal:
Raise Roof Over Existing Dwelling by 1400mm with Two
Storey Extension at Side (S) and Single Storey Flat Roofed
Extension at Side (N). as amended by plans rec'd 25.7.11 to
Raise Rooflights on the Side (S) Elevation.
Site Address:
41 Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr Findlay
Constraints
Bournemouth International Airport
Heathland 5km
Consultation Area Green Belt LP Groundwater Source
Protection Zone Historic Contaminated Land Heathland
5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites
Urban Areas LP
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
6 August 2011
Corfe Mullen Parish
Council Comments:
No objection
2 August 2011
Neighbour Comments:
Mr Matthew Downer 163 Object due to loss of light and overbearing, as a
Hillside Road, Corfe Mullen
result of height and bulk and close proximity to the
boundary.
Mr & Mrs P Whitehead 165 Object
Hillside Road, Corfe Mullen
1. The increase in roof height
10
We are built along a west to east line, so the increase
in roof height is no only overbearing but it will greatly
reduce our light during late Autumn, Winter and early
Spring. It is difficult to ascertain the actual increase
from the plans as it appears, from information on
them that they are not actually accurate on scale.
(Why are the actual dimensions NOT on the plans, it
makes one very suspicious that the wool is being
pulled over the intention).
2. The overall overbearing combined with proximity to
our boundary.
The nearness of the proposed garage to our
boundary, will bring a looming structure that adds to
the overbearing of the planned building.
Officers Report:
This application comes to Committee as one of the objectors is a member of staff at
East Dorset District Council.
The proposal is to raise the ridge of the existing fully gabled detached bungalow by
1400mm and construct a new fully gabled roof with cropped hip two storey extension
on the south elevation, together with a single storey flat roofed attached garage on
the north elevation. A new floor will be formed which will provide first floor
accommodation.
The main impacts are on the character of the immediate area and on the occupants
of the adjacent dwellings at 165, 163, 159 and 157 Hillside Rd. There is also the
impact on the extant planning permission 3/11/0348 for two detached houses at 163
Hillside Rd to consider.
A glazed gable is proposed on the front (west) elevation facing Brook Lane, together
with a gabled dormer window. The top section of the opposite (east) gable will be
glazed and no other windows are proposed on this elevation. The sill of the glazing
is at high level, therefore no adverse overlooking of 163 Hillside Rd will occur. A
narrow high level window is shown in the attached garage, and given the sill height,
no significant overlooking is foreseen from this.
The four roof lights on the south elevation face the rear boundaries of 157 and 159
Hillside Road. These will have high sills (1700mm or greater above floor level) and
therefore no significant overlooking of these properties should result. The distance
between the application dwelling and these properties, and the design employed will
prevent significant impact on their occupants.
The character of the immediate area is mixed, with two storey houses at 157, 159
and 165 Hillside Road, and a bungalow with accommodation in its roof at 163 Hillside
Rd. The application dwelling is a bungalow with no first floor accommodation. The
design proposed, together with its accompanying bulk, is considered to be
compatible with the character of the immediate area, and no adverse impact on the
appearance of the locality is envisaged.
11
Ground levels fall into the application site from 163 Hillside Road to the east, and the
application dwelling is appreciably lower than the dwelling at 163 Hillside Rd. This
will mitigate against the impact from the ridge height increase, and prevent the
application dwelling dominating and having an overbearing effect on 163.
The proposals' relationship with 165 Hillside Road is considered appropriate, given
the design to slope the main roof away from the boundary with this dwelling and the
distance between the main roof and the boundary (9500mm to the ridge). The site's
orientation in relation to the sun also helps to reduce any sunlight loss to 165, and no
substantial loss of daylight to this property is expected.
The flat roofed extension will come close to the boundary with 165, however a hedge
of approx. 2.5m forms this boundary, and the extension will not be considerably
higher than this, giving a similar impact.
The footprint of the two storey extension will project 3600mm from the application
dwelling and it will be adjacent to the boundary with 163 Hillside Road. The drop in
levels together with the design to crop and pitch the roof away from this boundary will
ensure that any loss of light and general impact on 163 is kept to an acceptable level.
The flat roof garage extension on the opposite elevation will also not have a
significant impact on 163, given the lower ground levels and flat roofed design. The
distance between both extensions and the boundary with 163 is viewed as
acceptable at 1500mm.
Consequently the physical relationship with 163 is
acceptable, and no significant impact on the amenity of its occupants is expected.
Members may recall granting planning permission for the demolition of the dwelling
at no.163 and its replacement with two detached houses in May 2011. These
dwellings 'borrow' much of their rear outlook from the application site, and have a
limited first floor outlook on account of the high level windows in their rear elevations
needed to prevent overlooking of the application site. Given the lower level of the
application site to no. 163, the separation distance between the proposed extensions
and these dwellings, and the design employed for the extensions which minimises
their bulk, there is considered to be no significant impact on the outlook from these
extant dwellings.
The application includes a negative Bat Check, therefore the requirements of the
Dorset Bat Protocol have been satisfied.
Recommendation:
GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
12
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
Drawing No. 11.07.3 - Site Plans dated 22.7.2011 and received 25.7.2011
R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 11.07.02.B - Proposed
Plans and Elevations dated 22.7.2011 and received 25.7.2011
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3
Details or identified samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before
any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in
accordance with the details as approved.
Reason:
To ensure that the external appearance of the building is
satisfactory.
4
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any re-enactment, there shall be no
further windows inserted into the first floor of the rear (east) and side (south)
elevation.
Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupants of 163 Hillside Road.
5
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any re-enactment, there shall be no
windows inserted into the first floor of the side (north) elevation.
Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupants of 165 Hillside Road.
Informatives:
1
The applicant is advised that bats are protected in the UK by Schedule 5 of
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Part 3 of the Conservation of
Natural Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and they are also protected by
European and International Law. Work should proceed with caution and if any
bats are found, all work should cease, the area in which the bats have been
found should be made secure and advice sought from Natural England (tel:
0300 060 2514).
2
The applicant is advised to consider the recommendations of the Bat
Assessment prepared by Emma Pollard dated 28th June 2011.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: DES8
13
Item Number:
3.
Ref:
3/11/0590/FUL
Proposal:
Extend Existing School Building to Form New Staff Room
Over Single Storey Flat Roofed Changing Room.
Site Address:
Hampreston Church Of England First School, Hampreston
Village, Wimborne, for Hampreston CE VA First School
Constraints
Bournemouth International Airport
Conservation Area
Heathland 5km Consultation Area
Green Belt LP
Groundwater Source Protection Zone Historic Contaminated
Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS
Technical Sites Open Space
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
24 July 2011
29 July 2011
18 July 2011
Ferndown Town Council
Comments:
No objection
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Design And
Conservation
This ‘Lady Wimborne' building forms the nucleus to
the School and principal visual link with the
conservation area. It has remained relatively
unscathed from the succession of alterations and
extensions that have taken place in developing the
School in recent times. It remains a good example of
a ‘Lady Wimborne' building and makes a positive
contribution to the historic and architectural interest of
the Hampreston conservation area.
This application proposes to significantly enlarge this
diminutive building by extending the line of the roof
and including an additional dormer to match the
existing pair. Even were the fine architectural detail of
the building's distinctive features to be faithfully
reproduced and materials found to match, the
enlarged structure would change the scale and form
of the building and materially alter its character.
The Planning (Historic Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 requires LPA's to conserve or
enhance the character of conservation areas. I do not
believe that these proposals achieve this requirement.
Neighbour Comments:
Mrs
M
Keets
3
New Object
14
Cottages,
Village
Hampreston The buildings that have been added on in recent
years are not in keeping with the original build.
80% of children are not local arriving 8.30am and
2.30pm. We as villagers have a job to get in and out
of village. If emergency services were required at
those times, it could have serious consequences.
Officers Report:
This application is brought before Members at the request of the Ward Councillor.
The Town Council has no objection to the proposal, but there is one letter of
objection from a neighbour concerned with the impact on the Conservation Area and
traffic generated by the school.
Hampreston School lies wholly within the Green Belt as well as in the Hampreston
Conservation Area. Dwellings lie to either side of the school premises, whilst to the
rear of the site are open fields.
Planning History
This is a small village school which over the decades has expanded to provide a one
form entry intake as it does today.
There have been several modest sized extensions to the school in the past,
culminating in a substantial extension to provide a school hall, ref 98/0896, which
was approved in December 1990 by the planning Committee contrary to Officer
recommendation. Since that time a small extension was approved in 2007, ref
07/0679. It was required to comply with part M of the Building Regulations with
regard to disabled facilities and a ramp to comply with other legislative requirements.
This was considered to be an exceptional circumstance in the Green Belt and
therefore not inappropriate development.
Recently Members may recall that two side extensions, one to enlarge the existing
year 2 classroom and the second to provide additional classroom space with the aim
of enabling forms to be split for subjects such as art and DT, and another to enlarge
the existing year 3 classroom were approved by Committee in 2008. On balance it
was contended that the proposals amounted to very special circumstances (ref
08/0747 and 08/0748).
Proposal
This application involves a first floor extension over the existing flat roofed changing
rooms to form a new staff room. The existing staff room would be converted into a
meeting room/ancillary area for SEN teaching. Dormers are proposed on the front
northeast and rear southwest elevations, with a doorway to provide access onto the
flat roof at the rear. (This may at some stage be proposed to provide an external
seating area for staff)
Policy
National Policies PPG2 (Green Belts) and PPS5 (Planning for the historic
environment) are relevant policies along with Local Plan Policy DES8 as the main
issues are the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt and Hampreston
Conservation Area and the amenities of adjoining neighbours.
15
Considerations
The principle concern is that the site lies within the Green Belt, where inappropriate
development will not be permitted. The first floor extension to the school does not
maintain the openness of the Green belt and conflicts with the purposes of including
land within it, contrary to the provisions of paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of PPG2.
Furthermore it is contended that no material supporting information has been
submitted with the application which has demonstrated that there are any
circumstances that are so special so as to outweigh the Green Belt policies, the harm
to the openness of the Green Belt and the reasons for including the land within it.
The applicant only refers to Building Bulletin 99, which is a non statutory guidance
with no mention of what is the ideal size of a staff room.
This ‘Lady Wimborne’ building forms the nucleus to the School and principal visual
link with the conservation area. It remains a good example of a ‘Lady Wimborne’
building and makes a positive contribution to the historic and architectural interest of
the Hampreston conservation area.
This application proposes to significantly enlarge this diminutive building by
extending the line of the roof and including additional dormers to match the existing
pair. Even where the fine architectural detail of the building’s distinctive features to be
faithfully reproduced and materials found to match, the enlarged structure would
change the scale and form of the building and materially alter its character. It is
contended that this extension would not conserve or enhance the character of the
conservation area. It would therefore be contrary to Planning Policy Statement 5
(PPS5)
In the absence of any compelling evidence to demonstrate special circumstances
and in order to protect the amenities of the conservation area the proposal is
considered contrary to National Policies PPG2 and PPS5 and it is therefore
recommended for refusal.
Recommendation:
REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-
Reasons:1
The proposed development lies within the Green Belt as defined in the
Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000, and identified in the
East Dorset Local Plan (2002). Within this area it is intended that no new
development shall be permitted except certain limited and appropriate
development. The proposed extension to the school amounts to inappropriate
development which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and contrary
to both the purposes of including the land within it and the objectives of the
designation. Inappropriate development includes the use for schools, and it is
considered harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. No supporting
information has been submitted with the application which has demonstrated
that there are any circumstances that are so special so as to outweigh the
Green Belt policies, the harm to the openness of the Green belt and the
reasons for including the land within it. The proposal is therefore contrary to
advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 ‘Green Belts’
16
2
The proposed extension to the Lady Wimborne building which forms the
nucleus to the school, would change the scale and form and consequently the
character of the building, which lies in a prominent position in the Hampreston
Conservation Area. Consequently the proposal would be contrary to National
Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) and Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local
Plan as it fails to conserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
Informatives:
1
In considering the application the Council were mindful of PPG2 (Green Belts)
and PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment)
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: DES8
Item Number:
4.
Ref:
3/11/0637/FUL
Proposal:
Container Based Biomass Boiler
Site Address:
Moors Valley Country Park, Ashley Heath, Ringwood, for
East Dorset District Council
Constraints
Bournemouth International Airport
Heathland 5km
Consultation Area Green Belt LP Historic Contaminated
Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS
Technical Sites Open Space
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
19 August 2011
26 August 2011
10 August 2011
No objection
St Leonards And St Ives
Parish Council Comments:
Neighbour Comments:
None
Officers Report:
This application comes before Committee because it relates to development at
Moors Valley Country Park which is in the Council’s ownership.
It is proposed to site a container based biomass boiler adjacent to the Visitor Centre
to provide energy to serve this facility. The existing, inadequate boiler will be retained
to provide additional load. The main consideration is the impact on the Green Belt
with reference to national Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green belt (PPG2).
17
The biomass boiler is to be installed within a steel container 6m long, 3m wide and
2.6m high. The boiler fills half of the container with the remainder, accessed via
double doors, used for essential chipping storage. The boiler will be served by a
2.7m high flue. It is proposed to realign the existing fencing to incorporate the boiler
into the existing utility compound adjacent to the Visitor Centre but two viewing
windows will allow visitors to inspect the renewable energy facility.
PPG2 defines essential facilities for outdoor recreation which preserve the openness
of the Green Belt as appropriate development in the green belt. In this instance the
boiler is an essential facility to support the Visitor Centre which in turn facilitates
outdoor recreation. Ideally the boiler would be installed in an existing building but the
capacity of the existing boiler room has been exceeded so the new boiler must be
located externally but in close proximity so as to minimise heat loss as it travels
through the distribution pipework. The siting of the boiler will increase the bulk of
development within the green belt and require the loss of several small trees but its
position adjacent to storage outbuildings will limit its visual impact on the green belt
and its proximity to an existing footpath will allow easy access for interested visitors.
The appearance of the boiler is appropriate to its context. The use of a sustainable
fuel source to heat the Visitor Centre will benefit the environment.
No objections have been received and approval is recommended.
Recommendation:
GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: 101/A
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning
Informatives:
1
In addition to the policies listed below, in reaching this decision the Council
has had regard to national planning policy guidance namely PPG2: Green
Belts
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
18
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: DES8
Item Number:
5.
Ref:
3/11/0647/HOU
Proposal:
Ground floor extension and conversion & extension of roof
to form first floor accommodation.
Site Address:
4 Stanfield Road, Ferndown, Dorset, for Mr G Ayles & Miss
S Gudge
Constraints
Bournemouth International Airport
Heathland 400m
Consultation Area Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation
Area Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS
Technical Sites Open Space Urban Areas LP
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
30 July 2011
Ferndown Town Council
Comments:
Objection
The proposal would result in a property which would
be overbearing. In particular, note was made of the
size of the roof of the new building. The property
would be out of keeping with other nearby properties
and a detriment to neighbours.
26 July 2011
Neighbour Comments:
None
Officers Report:
This application comes to Committee as the Officer recommendation is for approval
and the Town Council has objected.
The proposal is to extend the existing detached bungalow by constructing an
extension to the rear to square off the rear elevation, and erecting a new roof over
this addition and the whole dwelling to provide first floor accommodation (two
bedrooms and a bathroom). The new roof will be 850mm higher than the existing
and be cropped at the front and fully hipped at the rear to give a greater volume than
the current roof.
A single hipped roof dormer window will be at the rear with a single first floor window
at the front. Three roof lights are proposed at the side (north west) facing 2 Stanfield
Road (one at first floor and two at ground floor), with a flat roofed dormer window and
two first floor roof lights on the opposite (south east) side elevation.
The character of the immediate area is formed by a variety of designs of dwellings
including detached bungalows and chalet bungalows of modest proportions. No.6 is
a hipped roof bungalow with a greater ridge height than the application dwelling, and
19
No.2 is a gabled bungalow. The design proposed is not considered to detract from
the character of the area, given the area's mixed appearance.
The application follows refused proposal 3/10/1174 (under delegated powers) for a
similar proposal, which proposed the same ridge height increase with a gabled roof
which significantly increased the overall bulk of the dwelling. The depth coupled with
the height of this design was considered to give the dwelling a substantial bulk which
would be uncharacteristic of the immediate area.
The new design has significantly reduced the scheme's bulk, and has overcome the
reason for refusal concerning impact on the character of the area (Reason 1) relating
to planning application 3/10/1174. The second reason for refusal concerned
overlooking.
The roof light on the side (north west) elevation (facing No.2) will serve as a
secondary window to the rear bedroom, and is to be high level. Therefore no
adverse overlooking of the rear garden of No 2 is expected from it. The two other
roof lights on this elevation serve ground floor rooms and will have very high sills
prohibiting any overlooking when using the rooms they serve.
The two roof lights and dormer window on the opposite side (south east) face No.6.
The roof light near the rear elevation is a secondary window to a bedroom and will be
high level, and the window in the dormer is to be obscure glazed with top-opening
fanlights with high sills and fixed shut lower section. This will avoid adverse
overlooking of the garden and conservatory of No.6.
The rear dormer window will allow some overlooking of the rear gardens of 2 and 6
Stanfield Rd. However, given the relationship between it and the rear gardens of
these dwellings, this overlooking is unlikely to be significant.
Therefore the proposal accords with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002
The application includes a Biodiversity Checklist that states that the site has been
surveyed for bats and none were found, which accords with the Dorset Bat Protocol.
Recommendation:
GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
R B Services Drawing No. R610 dated October 2010 - Floor Plans and
Elevations received 1.7.2011.
20
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3
The materials and finishes to be used for the external walls of the extensions
hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building unless otherwise
first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and a sample of the
proposed roof tile shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of construction.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to
the existing.
4
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, the
roof light serving the first floor staircase proposed for the side (north west)
elevation shall be installed with its sill at or above 1700mm above floor level of
the space it serves.
Reason: To preserve the privacy of occupants of the adjoining property at 2
Stanfield Road.
5
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any subsequent re-enactment, the
most westerly roof light serving the rear bedroom proposed for the side (south
east) elevation shall be installed with its sill at or above 1700mm above floor
level of the room it serves.
Reason: To preserve the privacy of occupants of the adjoining property at 6
Stanfield Road.
6
Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the first floor
window in the dormer window serving a bathroom in the side (south east)
elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass to Level 5 Obscurity. This
window shall either be fixed closed or have a top opening fanlight with the sill
of the openable part at least 1700mm above floor level and the lower section
fixed shut.
Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the occupants of the
adjoining property at 6 Stanfield Road.
7
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any re-enactment, and the approved
plans, there shall be no further windows inserted into the first floor of the side
(north west and south east) elevations.
Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupants of the neighbouring dwellings
at 2 and 6 Stanfield Road.
21
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: DES8
Item Number:
6.
3/11/0664/FUL
Ref:
Proposal:
To Provide a Hard Standing Area for 8 Vehicles at the
Proposed Allotment Site off Green Lane, Longham (to the
rear of Haskins Garden Centre) as amended by plans rec'd
4.8.11 to Amend Position of Parking Area.
Site Address:
Green Lane, Longham, Ferndown, for Mr I Jones
Constraints
Bournemouth International Airport
Heathland 5km
Consultation Area Green Belt LP Groundwater Source
Protection Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or
400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
6 August 2011
Ferndown Town Council
Comments:
No comment
Consultee Responses:
County Highways Development
Liaison Officer
3 August 2011
No Objection
Subject to the following condition:
Parking
The development hereby permitted shall not be
occupied until the parking provision shown on
amended plan number xx has been constructed.
Thereafter, the parking areas shall be maintained,
kept free from obstruction and available for the
purpose specified.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
County Rights Of Way Officer
The proposed works are in the vicinity of
Bridleway 37 - Ferndown, as recorded on the
County Definitive Map and Statement of rights of
way. However, I am unaware of any unrecorded
paths that may be affected.
I have concerns about the proposed hard
standing, in that it only accommodates 8
vehicles. It is anticipated that the allotment plot
22
will accommodate approximately 40 plots thus
leaving 32 vehicles which in extreme worse case
scenario would have to park elsewhere. It would
be tempting for them to park on Green Lane, the
bridleway but they would be creating an offence
by doing so, causing an obstruction to the
highway and possible health and safety
implications for legitimate public access.
I think that if the proposed site goes ahead then
parking on the allotment site should be
reconsidered to avoid such incidents. It would be
possible to design the site in such a way that
each plot had dedicated parking alongside. This
might reduce the number of available plots but it
should, in theory leave the public right of way
unobstructed.
I assume that a full risk assessment has been
carried out for access out onto the very busy
A348?
It should be noted that the use of this bridleway
by vehicular traffic without lawful authority is an
offence contrary to Section 34 of the Road Traffic
Act 1988. Any damage to the surface of the path
attributable to the development must be repaired
to Dorset County Council's specification, in
accordance with Section 59 of the Highways Act
1980. It should also be noted that the offence
created by Section 34 is not committed if the
vehicle is driven on to land not more than 15
yards from a road which is a public carriageway,
for the purpose of parking the vehicle on that
land.
The free passage of the public on all rights of
way must not be obstructed at any time. If the
public are unlikely to be able to exercise their
public rights on the above path then a Temporary
Path Closure Order must be obtained. This can
be applied for through this office but the
application must be completed and returned at
least thirteen weeks before the intended closure
date. It should be noted that there is a fee
applicable to this application.
Neighbour Comments:
S Collard Stour View, Green Object
Lane
I have recently been informed that the District
Council have given planning permission for 48
23
allotment plots on land adjoining Haskins Garden
Centre and Green Lane.
Obviously car parking will be involved with this
development and I am concerned that this will
severely restrict movement in Green Lane. At
present we have dozens of cars at different times
and places in the Lane, parking whilst they
admire the Lakes and walk their dogs.
The proposed allotment facility will not affect our
premises access but it will make the entrance to
Green Lane extremely dangerous from the A348,
more so as there is no 'Keep Clear' sign on the
348 at this point.
Mrs M J Bailey 9 High Mead, I write regarding the above proposal and would
Longham
like it noted for the records that I have no
objection to the allotments themselves.
I do have concerns about the users of the
allotments parking their cars in Green Lane and
blocking the access in and out.
I am hoping that the Council have thought this
through and will make a parking area in the same
grounds as the allotments so as not to cause any
problems.
Mrs Jill Bailey The Rest 2 Green We are writing in response to the recent
Lane, Longham
application for a hard standing area for 8 vehicles
at the proposed allotments in Green Lane.
We have to stress our deepest concerns that the
council would even consider allowing 40 vehicles
into and over Green Lane. We have had great
difficulties with staff from the Nursing Home
parking in the entrance of Green Lane. Whilst
this has improved following complaints to the
management of Colton Care, it continues to
occur but on a less regular basis.
Following Longham Lakes opening we have
further daily difficulties due to people randomly
parking their cars in Green Lane when walking
their dogs around the lakes.
In addition to the above employees of Arborcare
Tree Services park between 1 and 4 vehicles
daily at the entrance of Green Lane making entry
and exit to the Lane very very dangerous. There
have been numerous near accidents at the
junction of Green Lane and Ringwood Road due
to the parking and the subsequent increased
numbers of cars in the Lane. This is the exact
24
area that would be the entrance to the allotments
and hard standing should the proposal be
permitted. We would also like to point out that
the entrance to the proposed site is not visible
when leaving Green Lane, as it is set behind a
blind bend, further increasing the risk of
accidents occurring.
Mr Jones Design and
Access Statement dated 4th July 2011 confirms
that the site is well screened and can only been
seen from the entrance gate.
Given that there are 40 plus proposed allotments
and only a hard standings for 8 vehicles we ask
where the other vehicles would park when using
the allotments, as there is no parking in or near
Longham. We predict that this parking will occur
in Green Lane which will result in a significant
additional risk being posed to the residents and
horse riders using the lane and unacceptable
damage and erosion to the hedgerows and
subsequent harm to the local wildlife.
Given there are 40 proposed allotments and a
hard standings for 8 it is highly likely that the
majority of plot holders will enter Green Lane in a
bid to access the hard standing, once this is full
we will then have vehicles turning and seeking
alternative parking up and down the Lane.
We strongly oppose the application for the hard
standing on the basis that it is within a Green Belt
area and will create a significant increase in
vehicles using Green Lane, therefore placing an
unacceptable increased risk to those living in and
using the Lane.
BCA Contractors 169 Ringwood Object
Road, Longham
I am bewildered that allotments are being
proposed in Green Lane. It is my understanding
that Green Lane is a bridleway and would have to
question how vehicular access for 40 plus cars
could or would be permitted. The access to the
allocated site has been locked and not used for
many years.
In addition to the proposed 8 hardstandings being
in a Green Belt area that has very clear
restrictions, I have further concerns relate to the
parking of the other 40 vehicles given there is no
identified parking for them, other than in and
around the area. Over the last 18 months Green
Lane has become increasingly hazardous due to
25
daily parking from the Arborcare Tree Services,
staff from the nursing home in addition to the
increased parking created up and down Green
Lane from vehicles using the lakes.
I am genuinely concerned it will only be a matter
of time before a serious accident occurs at the
entrance of Green Lane/Ringwood Road due to
the misuse and parking in the Lane and would be
bewildered if the council allowed potentially
another 40 vehicles onto and across a bridleway,
increasing the risks further.
As you will see from my comments I strongly
oppose the allotments and the hardstandings due
to the certain increase of vehicles it will create
onto and leaving Green lane and the dangers this
will cause for those living in the Lane and those
using it for riding. It should also be noted that
Green Lane exits onto Ringwood Road which is a
very busy main road with ever increasing
congestion, before another 40 vehicles try to
enter and leave the Lane close to a pedestrian
crossing.
Mrs Julie Masterman Park View, Further to your letter dated 13 July 2011 I
Green Lane
strongly object to the planning application for a
hard standing area for 8 vehicles at the proposed
allotment site.
It is becoming more and more difficult to enter
and exit green lane since the lakes have opened
and if this allotment site is allowed the lane will
not cope with the increased traffic. This lane is a
"green lane" in a green belt area which should be
left as one with low levels of traffic, for walkers
and house holders traffic.
Longham has seen too many changes in recent
years and will soon lose its identity and merge
into the surrounding area.
I hope the planning officers will consider all my
point made and not just rubber stamp yet another
small but significant change which leads to
further development.
Officers Report:
This application comes to Committee as there have been five letters of objection from
nearby residents and a business and these raise concerns regarding highway safety.
The proposal is to construct a hard standing area for eight vehicles at a proposed
allotment site to the north of Green Lane and south of Haskins Garden Centre.
26
Vehicular access is to be via the existing gated access onto Green Lane, which joins
Ringwood Road to the east and High Mead Lane to the west.
The use of the application site is restricted by a Section 106 Legal Obligation under
Planning Permission 3/93/0030 for a garden centre and office development (now
Haskins). This stipulates that the site shall remain free of development other than
that permitted at Haskins, and that the site shall not be sold except as part of a sale
of the land to be occupied by the owner as a garden centre. The application includes
a draft Supplementary Legal Agreement to release the site from this obligation, and
this is currently being assessed by the Council's Legal team.
The site comprises a large field and has a tall hedge/trees on its north, south and
east boundaries. There is a chainlink fence on the west boundary with the property
known as Park View. The site is to be used as allotments by Ferndown Town
Council and a maximum of 26 full allotments or 52 half-sized allotments are
envisaged. The use of agricultural land as allotments does not require planning
permission, and therefore no permission is sought for this aspect.
The site lies in the Green Belt and countryside, outside any urban or village infilling
area as set out in the East Dorset Local Plan 2002. Policies CSIDE1, TRANS2 and
TRANS10 are applicable.
Allotments are classed as an agricultural use of land, and therefore represent an
appropriate land use in the Green Belt. The parking proposed is ancillary to the
allotments and is modest in scale and appropriate for the number of allotments.
Parking of eight cars at the site will have an impact on the openness of the Green
Belt. However given that it represents a small part of the overall site, and will be
well-screened by the existing trees and vegetation on the site's boundaries, the
actual harm to the Green belt will not be significant.
It is worth noting that vehicles could be parked at the site on the grass without
needing planning permission as this would be ancillary to the allotment use. The hard
standing itself needs planning permission as it involves development, not the area to
park vehicles.
The proposal complies with Policy CSIDE1 as it represents an agricultural use and
will not harm the amenities of the countryside due to the significant screening offered
by the existing vegetated boundaries.
Dorset County Council's (DCC) Rights of Way Officer has objected to the proposal on
the grounds that it has insufficient off-road parking for the number of allotments,
which will lead to parking on Green lane which is a bridleway. Parking on this lane is
an offence as it will obstruct the highway. He also states that use of the bridleway
without lawful authority is an offence, and asks whether a full risk assessment of the
access onto the A348 has been undertaken.
The application is for the car park, and no permission is necessary for the allotments.
There has been no objection from DCC Highways regarding the level of parking
provided or the intensification of the use of the access onto the A348. The car park
itself is considered acceptable and there is no reason to assume that there will be
27
parking on Green Lane. If this becomes a problem, it will be for the Town Council to
resolve with the DCC Rights of Way Officer.
Recommendation:
GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
Site Plan received 5.7.2011
1:1250 scale location plan received 4.8.2011 (Amended Plan)
1:500 scale parking plan received 4.8.2011 (Amended Plan)
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3
Prior to development commencing to form the hard standing area, scale plans
shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to show
the type of hard surfacing to be used and the retention of the trees/vegetation
on the site's boundaries. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance for the hard surfacing, and
adequate screening for the parking area in the interests of visual amenity.
4
The parking area hereby permitted shall only be used for vehicles associated
with the allotments and for no other purpose.
Reason: To ensure the parking remains available for users of the allotments
which are considered to be an appropriate use of land in the Green Belt.
5
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the parking
provision shown on the amended plans received on the 4th August 2011 has
been constructed. Thereafter, the parking areas shall be maintained, kept free
from obstruction and available for the purpose specified.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
28
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: CSIDE1 TRANS2 TRAN10
Item Number:
7.
Ref:
3/11/0666/HOU
Proposal:
Two Storey Rear Extension
Site Address:
Green Pastures, Hinton Martell, Wimborne, for Mr J
O'Rourke Ms L Southwood
Constraints
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Bournemouth
International Airport Conservation Area Heathland 5km
Consultation Area Green Belt LP
7 August 2011
12 August 2011
29 July 2011
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
Vale Of Allen Parish
Council Comments:
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Design And
Conservation
Support:
This is a very carefully thought out plan that brings an
old cottage into the modern age in a sympathetic
manner.
The central issue relating to this proposal is whether
the justification for the works outweighs any harm to
the listed building and to the twin listed building
attached to its west side (Dewlands). The extension
would impact on neighbours' amenities to the east
(Hinton Cottage) but the open garden setting once
enjoyed at the rear of Hinton Cottage has already
been compromised by the addition of a small rear
extension and large garage. The proposed extension
would add to the group of new buildings.
The case for the proposed rear extension is well
presented in the heritage statement accompanying
the application. I have some sympathy for the design
approach, which proposes an entirely new method of
construction (timber frame) in order to articulate the
contemporary 21st century phase from the earlier
phases - the original 18th century chalk cob cottage
and 19th century brick outshut at the rear.
The historic and architectural significance of the listed
building may be summarised thus:
Matching pair of 18th century cob cottages.
Matching 19th century brick out-shuts.
Both cottages largely unaltered since 1880's; cellular
plan form intact.
Distinctive simple, low pitched roof with cat-slide to
29
the rear, without dormers or other projections.
Tall chimneys.
Well-proportioned front elevation.
It is proposed to retain the existing ground-floor plan,
retaining the original cob structure intact. It is also
currently intended to retain the 19th century rear wall
to the kitchen, which in the present proposals would
rely on borrowed light from the new dining room.
Currently, the sole (and irreversible) intervention to
the building comprises the proposed first-floor
element of the accommodation. Although the ridge
level is well below that of the cottage, the new work
would cut into the shallow sloping roof, potentially
affecting historic fabric, and resulting in added bulk to
the extension.
The new work comprises an oak frame, clad in oak
weather-boarding under a slate roof. The ground
floor, comprising a garden room/dining room, is
glazed on the north and west elevations in order to
express the timber frame and to maximise borrowed
light into the kitchen behind. A large modern window
proposed on the first floor of the north gable
overlooking the garden represents the only glazing at
this level apart from three c1000 x 500mm roof-lights
on each side elevation (the applicant has indicated
that some of these could be dispensed with if
necessary). The timber frame, weather-boarding and
modern glazing are intended to act as a counter-point
to the solidity of the existing cottage. As a design
approach, it has its merits. Whether it ‘maintains the
special interest of the historical asset through the
quality of design and use of materials', as asserted in
the heritage statement, is a matter of opinion. The
original element of the building, including the
important front elevation, remains unaffected but
there are other elements of significance which would
be adversely affected. The ‘quality of design' is not so
outstanding as to compensate for this loss.
The new extension would radically affect the
character of the building by removing most of the catslide feature from this cottage and by adding an
entirely new feature of a size that appears
disproportionate to the size of the cottage. In my
view, it would disrupt the unity and clarity of form and
materials of both cottages.
PPS5 requires that, where a proposal has a harmful
30
impact on the significance of a designated heritage
asset, which is less than substantial harm
(demolition) in all cases LPA's should weigh the
public benefit of the proposal (for example, that it
helps to secure the optimum viable use of the
heritage asset in the interests of its long-term
conservation) against the harm. Also, the greater the
harm to the significance of the heritage asset the
greater the justification will be needed for any loss.
Policy HE 9.1 states that ‘loss affecting any
designated heritage asset should require clear and
convincing justification'.
At present, the cottage has three first-floor bedrooms
and a large bathroom, albeit having restricted headroom. It is currently in use as a family home and its
long term viability is not at risk. There appears to be
no public benefit to compensate for the demonstrable
harm.
The proposals are contrary to S.16 (2) of the
Planning (Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas)
Act 1990 ‘the LPA shall have special regard to the
desirability of preserving the building or its setting or
any features of special architectural or historic
interest which it possesses' and contrary to Policy
HE9.1 contained in PPS5: ‘There should be a
presumption in favour of the conservation of
designated heritage assets'. ‘Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the
heritage asset or development within its setting'.
‘Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should
require clear and convincing justification'
Neighbour Comments:
Stephen & Francesca Rock
Dewlands, Hinton Martell
Although we have no objection in principle we do
have concerns about this particular proposal and
would like to make the following observations:
Size - The height of the proposed building concerns
us as it will have an adverse effect on the amenity
value of the paved area (patio) adjoining the rear of
our house. We have treated this as an extension of
our normal living area during the spring and summer
and during the first part of the morning a significant
part of it would be in the shade.
Overlooking of our patio and kitchen Notwithstanding the assertion at paragraph 3.6 of the
Design Statement that there are no windows directly
overlooking the neighbouring properties there would
appear to be two roof lights so positioned as to
31
enable occupants to look directly into the patio area.
it is possible also that the kitchen of Dewlands may
be overlooked.
Symmetry - We note that it is claimed between
paragraphs 2.15 and 2.19 of the Design Statement
that our garage - sited some 30 feet or so from our
house and screened from view by foliage most of the
year - both affects the symmetry of the "wider setting"
of the buildings and has changed their character.
With respect to the applicants' architect, we fail to
see how the existence of this garage has any effect
whatever on either the symmetry or character of the
rear elevation of the buildings and their immediate
setting, which are surely the principal subjects of this
application.
Living space - Reference is made to this at paragraph
4.3 of the Design Statement. Internal living space
requirements are, we concede, a matter of subjective
taste but we do have both a bathroom and a shower
room in the rear part of our house providing adequate
space for our purposes.
Mr & Mrs Pacey Hinton Object
Cottage, Hinton Martell
We are informed by the planning department that, in
the event of them being refused consent and appeals
being subsequently lodged, we would not be able to
put forward any comments at that time: we have
therefore been advised to make any comments we
have at this stage. This places us in a difficult
position in that we have no wish to distress or annoy
our good neighbours who have made these
applications, but at the same time we have some
misgivings; we are therefore writing to you with a
degree of regret and reluctance.
Our concerns are principally over the height, size and
bulk of the extension, both in relation to the existing
cottage, and how it may affect our property. In our
opinion, the extension appears to be out of scale to
the rear of the cottage with its cat-slide roof and low
level eaves. The pair of cottages are relatively
unusual in having remained largely unaltered, and
the pair of cat-slide roofs are an intrinsic part of their
character as Listed Buildings. It would be a pity to
destroy the symmetry of the building with a significant
two storey extension.
We also have some concern regarding the
overshadowing, and potential overlooking of our
property, due to the height of the extension and its
close proximity to the boundary in relation to our rear
garden. Reference has been made to the rear
extension of Hinton Cottage as a comparable
32
scheme, but it is set in the middle of the wide plot,
and well away from the boundaries so as to have no
significant effect on adjoining properties.
We are therefore obliged to register our objection to
the proposed extension of Green Pastures in its
present form, due to our perception of it as being of
too large a bulk, forming an undesirable alteration to
a Listed Building, and affecting the amenities of
adjacent Listed Buildings.
Officers Report:
This application is brought to Committee as the Officer’s recommendation is contrary
to the Parish Council’s comments.
Site Description
Green Pastures and Dewlands are a pair of semi detached Grade II listed buildings
in the Hinton Martell Conservation Area. The pair were listed in 1995 and are built of
a vernacular building material (cob) but were remodelled (according to English
Heritage) in a more formal style with sash windows, a gabled slate roof and a rear
outshut in the C19th. A prominent feature is the tall brick central and end stacks and
slender rear outshut stacks.
The two dwellings are symmetrical from the front and rear and appear to have been
essentially unchanged since that date. The Conservation Area contains these two
dwellings and Longlands (built in the 1980’s) to the west and Hinton Cottage (also
listed) to the east. There are also several undistinguished dwellings on the opposite
side of the highway which are excluded from the conservation area. Dewlands has a
detached rear garage while Green Pastures has a forecourt parking area. Hinton
Cottage has a single storey linked rear extension that does not break into its thatched
rear outshut permitted under Appn. 03/1121 and a large garage in the rear of the
plot.
The site is within the village envelope for Hinton Martell which is overwashed by the
South East Dorset Green Belt and the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Proposal
This application is to erect a two storey rear extension on Green Pastures to provide
a half glazed dining room on the ground floor and a bedroom and bathroom
extension on the first. The extension will be timber framed with timber cladding and
oak framed glazing under a slate roof pierced by six roof lights. On the first floor the
extension will be accessed through the area currently used as a bathroom. The
extension roof will rise from near the eaves level of the existing dwelling to 6 metres
at the ridge (the existing dwelling has a ridge height of 6.7 metres) and have a
projection beyond the existing outshut of 5 metres. There is an accompanying listed
building application for this extension (3/11/ 0667).
33
History
The dwellings appear to have been unchanged since the C19th and the survival of
the symmetry of the pair is remarkable given the lateness of the listing.
An informal submission in October 2010 proposed a similar extension to the current
application. The advice tendered after consultation with the Design and Conservation
Officer was that while the proposal was for a lightweight structure to reduce the
impact on historic fabric it was clearly the restrained symmetry of the pair that
enhanced their contribution to the conservation area. The proposal would dissolve
that symmetry and introduce a large extension that would challenge the principal
listed building and erode its historic and architectural interest. For this reason an
application could not be encouraged.
In a further exchange it was opined that there may be scope for a very modest single
storey rear extension that followed the form of the existing rear outshut but that in the
officer’s opinion it was impossible to envisage any form of two storey extension that
would not harm the architectural interest and character of this pleasant pair of
dwellings that make a significant contribution to the conservation area. This
application was subsequently received.
Considerations
The separation of the proposed extension from the village infilling boundary and the
Green Belt and AONB to the rear of the site is sufficient to prevent harm. In his
measured response the Design and Conservation Officer considers the design
approach is not without merit although the effect upon the neighbouring property
‘Dewlands’ is discussed further on in this report. The extension will not be prominent
from the public highway and given the distance from any other viewpoint he opines it
will not directly affect the character of the wider conservation area.
The principal consideration is the effect upon this designated heritage asset and
whether that harm can be offset against any other factor. The dwellings are a striking
pair of survivors with the shallow roof, landmark stacks and mannered fenestration
seen in much larger formal houses. They have immediately apparent genteel charm,
and the Agent has reproduced the listing assessors report in the heritage statement,
which acknowledges how intact the buildings are both internally and externally
following the C19th remodelling, including the rear elevations.
While the design has its merits, the question is whether the proposal maintains the
special interest of the historical asset through the quality of the design and the use of
the materials. The approach is workmanlike and honest but is not so outstanding as
to justify the loss of historic context entailed in breaking into the existing outshut roof,
worsened by the visual impact and the loss of the symmetry of the pair. The Design
and Conservation Officer considers that while the original element of the dwelling
remains essentially unaffected, the new extension would radically affect the character
of the building by covering part of the ‘cat slide’ feature and adding an entirely new
feature of a size that appears disproportionate to the cottage, disrupting the unity and
clarity of form and materials of both cottages
34
The Design and Conservation Officer has visited the site and confirms the dwelling
has three first floor bedrooms and a bathroom albeit with severely restricted
headroom. The current first floor facilities therefore appear adequate for everyday
living. Like its neighbour it is currently in use as a family home.
Para. HE9.4 of PPS5 requires that where a proposal has the potential to cause less
than substantial harm it is necessary to weigh that harm against the public benefit of
the proposal. The greater the harm to the significance of the asset the greater will be
the justification needed for any loss. Para. HE 9.1 of PPS5 states that ‘loss affecting
any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.’
It appears that the thrust of the above paragraphs is that any ‘less than substantial
harm’ to a heritage asset can only be justified where (in this instance) it would help
‘to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of its long
term conservation’. The optimum use of the asset (which would attract an
appropriate level of maintenance) is as a dwellinghouse. The dwelling currently has
an upstairs bathroom, albeit a cramped one, and two larger and one smaller
bedroom. This is similar to many listed properties. It is acknowledged that having a
further more spacious bedroom and a bathroom with good headroom would enhance
the experience of living in this charming dwelling but there are already the facilities
available for normal family life, therefore its long term viability does not appear to be
at risk. There are essential facilities on the first floor so that younger members need
not navigate the stairs during the hours of darkness. In addition officer advice has
been that a modest first floor extension that could accommodate a larger
bathroom/wet room may be acceptable, depending upon design.
In making the decision to purchase and live in a listed property it is necessary to
accept some limitations regarding what changes can be made without losing the
essential qualities that led to the building being listed. Unfortunately any appraisal of
the proposal must conclude that the improvement in living conditions afforded by the
extension is insufficient justification compared to the substantial harm caused by the
loss of historic context and the visual impact upon the architectural interest of this
pair of dwellings. In summary there is no public benefit in the wider definition that is
sufficiently overriding to compensate for the demonstrable harm to the architectural
and historic interest of this listed building by erecting this extension as required by
PPS5.
Regarding the design of the extension, the principal consideration is whether the
proposal is acceptable in terms of Policy DES8 of the Local Plan. This form of rear
extension cutting into the outshut is often used as a means of providing further first
floor accommodation on single pile dwellings. What is unusual is the projection of the
rear extension at 5 metres, which appears excessive. The assumption is that the
linking of the extension roof to the current eaves is to minimise the loss of context
from the existing catslide, but this results in an impression that the extension is ‘semi
detached’ from the main range.
If this application was not for a listed building Officer advice may be to reduce the
projection to three metres beyond the ground floor outshut and to spring the
extension ridge directly from the rear roof plane to better integrate the two forms and
incorporate a bathroom at the junction, but this approach would unfortunately
increase the loss of historic context. In this instance it is considered that,
35
notwithstanding the recommendation appended to the accompanying listed building
application, attempting to minimise the impact upon the historic fabric has resulted in
an over long extension that is poorly co-ordinated to the historic core and would have
an oppressive effect upon the amenities of the adjoining occupiers due to the
excessive rear projection and subsequent two storey bulk.
For this reason the proposal fails to accord with DES8 due to the excessive
projection of the extension at 5 metres beyond the outshut, the minimal linkage to the
main roof and the subsequent impression of bulk. This report may give the
impression that the Applicant is caught between two conflicting requirements but
illustrates the difficulties in extending a listed building.
The Applicant has submitted a further supporting statement dated 16 August. This
extends the arguments already put forward including the need for better bathroom
facilities on the first floor and that there are no compelling reasons for retaining the
present symmetry at the rear and the requirement that listed buildings should be
allowed to sensitively evolve. The first is discussed above while the Council’s
response to the second is that such change should be sufficiently gradual not to
erode the significance of the heritage asset, which this proposal unfortunately fails to
do.
Recommendation:
REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-
Reasons:1
The construction of the proposed two storey rear extension would cause
disproportionate harm to the significance of this listed building compared to
the degree of public benefit obtained contrary to the guidance contained in
Para. HE9.4 of Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic
Environment due to the loss of historic context from the rear roof and the
effect of the excessive depth, height and bulk of the proposed extension on
the architectural interest and symmetry of this listed building and its neighbour,
Dewlands. Furthermore, the Applicant has failed to provide the clear and
convincing justification for this harm required by Para. HE9.1 due to the
existing evidence that the dwelling and its neighbour, Dewlands, are capable
of providing viable residential use in their present form due to the
accommodation available on the first floor of the dwelling and the potential for
providing any further services in a less harmful form. The proposal is therefore
also contrary to S.16 (2) of the Planning (Historic Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 which states: ‘The LPA shall have special regard to the
desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special
architectural or historic interest which it possesses’ and also contrary to Policy
HE9.1 contained in PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment which states:
‘There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated
heritage assets’.
2
Due to the excessive depth of the proposed two storey extension at 5 metres
beyond the existing rear elevation the proposal would have an unacceptable
overbearing effect when viewed from the rear amenity area of the
neighbouring property, Dewlands, worsened by the modest height of the rear
elevation of that dwelling and the existing symmetry of the two buildings.. Due
36
to this bulk, height and visual impact the proposal would fail to improve its
immediate surroundings or harmonise with the area in which it is set contrary
to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and fail to take the opportunity to
improve the character and quality of the area contrary to Planning Policy
Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following
policies:
DES8
Item Number:
8.
3/11/0667/LBC
Ref:
Proposal:
Two Storey Rear Extension
Site Address:
Green Pastures, Hinton Martell, Wimborne, for Mr J
O'Rourke And Ms L Southwood
Constraints
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LP Bournemouth
International Airport Conservation Area Heathland 5km
Consultation Area Green Belt LP Historic Contaminated
Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area Listed
Buildings Listed Buildings NATS Technical Sites
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
7 August 2011
12 August 2011
29 July 2011
Vale Of Allen Parish Council
Comments:
Support:
This is a very carefully thought out plan that brings
an old cottage into the modern age in a
sympathetic manner.
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Design And
Conservation
The central issue relating to this proposal is
whether the justification for the works outweighs
any harm to the listed building and to the twin
listed building attached to its west side
(Dewlands). The extension would impact on
neighbours' amenities to the east (Hinton Cottage)
but the open garden setting once enjoyed at the
rear of Hinton Cottage has already been
compromised by the addition of a small rear
extension and large garage. The proposed
extension would add to the group of new buildings.
The case for the proposed rear extension is well
presented in the heritage statement accompanying
37
the application. I have some sympathy for the
design approach, which proposes an entirely new
method of construction (timber frame) in order to
articulate the contemporary 21st century phase
from the earlier phases - the original 18th century
chalk cob cottage and 19th century brick outshut at
the rear.
The historic and architectural significance of the
listed building may be summarised thus:
Matching pair of 18th century cob cottages.
Matching 19th century brick out-shuts.
Both cottages largely unaltered since 1880's;
cellular plan form intact.
Distinctive simple, low pitched roof with cat-slide to
the rear, without dormers or other projections.
Tall chimneys.
Well-proportioned front elevation.
It is proposed to retain the existing ground-floor
plan, retaining the original cob structure intact. It is
also currently intended to retain the 19th century
rear wall to the kitchen, which in the present
proposals would rely on borrowed light from the
new dining room.
Currently, the sole (and irreversible) intervention to
the building comprises the proposed first-floor
element of the accommodation. Although the ridge
level is well below that of the cottage, the new
work would cut into the shallow sloping roof,
potentially affecting historic fabric, and resulting in
added bulk to the extension.
The new work comprises an oak frame, clad in oak
weather-boarding under a slate roof. The ground
floor, comprising a garden room/dining room, is
glazed on the north and west elevations in order to
express the timber frame and to maximise
borrowed light into the kitchen behind. A large
modern window proposed on the first floor of the
north gable overlooking the garden represents the
only glazing at this level apart from three c1000 x
500mm roof-lights on each side elevation (the
applicant has indicated that some of these could
be dispensed with if necessary). The timber frame,
weather-boarding and modern glazing are
intended to act as a counter-point to the solidity of
the existing cottage. As a design approach, it has
its merits. Whether it ‘maintains the special interest
of the historical asset through the quality of design
38
and use of materials', as asserted in the heritage
statement, is a matter of opinion. The original
element of the building, including the important
front elevation, remains unaffected but there are
other elements of significance which would be
adversely affected. The ‘quality of design' is not so
outstanding as to compensate for this loss.
The new extension would radically affect the
character of the building by removing most of the
cat-slide feature from this cottage and by adding
an entirely new feature of a size that appears
disproportionate to the size of the cottage. In my
view, it would disrupt the unity and clarity of form
and materials of both cottages.
PPS5 requires that, where a proposal has a
harmful impact on the significance of a designated
heritage asset, which is less than substantial harm
(demolition) in all cases LPA's should weigh the
public benefit of the proposal (for example, that it
helps to secure the optimum viable use of the
heritage asset in the interests of its long-term
conservation) against the harm. Also, the greater
the harm to the significance of the heritage asset
the greater the justification will be needed for any
loss. Policy HE 9.1 states that ‘loss affecting any
designated heritage asset should require clear and
convincing justification'.
At present, the cottage has three first-floor
bedrooms and a large bathroom, albeit having
restricted head-room. It is currently in use as a
family home and its long term viability is not at risk.
There appears to be no public benefit to
compensate for the demonstrable harm.
The proposals are contrary to S.16 (2) of the
Planning (Historic Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 ‘the LPA shall have special regard
to the desirability of preserving the building or its
setting or any features of special architectural or
historic interest which it possesses' and contrary to
Policy HE9.1 contained in PPS5: ‘There should be
a presumption in favour of the conservation of
designated heritage assets'. ‘Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of
the heritage asset or development within its
setting'. ‘Loss affecting any designated heritage
asset should require clear and convincing
justification'.
39
Neighbour Comments:
Stephen & Francesca Rock Although we have no objection in principle we do
Dewlands, Hinton Martell
have concerns about this particular proposal and
would like to make the following observations:
Size - The height of the proposed building
concerns us as it will have an adverse effect on
the amenity value of the paved area (patio)
adjoining the rear of our house. We have treated
this as an extension of our normal living area
during the spring and summer and during the first
part of the morning a significant part of it would be
in the shade.
Overlooking of our patio and kitchen Notwithstanding the assertion at paragraph 3.6 of
the Design Statement that there are no windows
directly overlooking the neighbouring properties
there would appear to be two roof lights so
positioned as to enable occupants to look directly
into the patio area. it is possible also that the
kitchen of Dewlands may be overlooked.
Symmetry - We note that it is claimed between
paragraphs 2.15 and 2.19 of the Design Statement
that our garage - sited some 30 feet or so from our
house and screened from view by foliage most of
the year - both affects the symmetry of the "wider
setting" of the buildings and has changed their
character. With respect to the applicants' architect,
we fail to see how the existence of this garage has
any effect whatever on either the symmetry or
character of the rear elevation of the buildings and
their immediate setting, which are surely the
principal subjects of this application.
Living space - Reference is made to this at
paragraph 4.3 of the Design Statement. Internal
living space requirements are, we concede, a
matter of subjective taste but we do have both a
bathroom and a shower room in the rear part of
our house providing adequate space for our
purposes.
Mr & Mrs Pacey
Cottage, Hinton Martell
Hinton Object
We are informed by the planning department that,
in the event of them being refused consent and
appeals being subsequently lodged, we would not
be able to put forward any comments at that time:
we have therefore been advised to make any
comments we have at this stage. This places us in
a difficult position in that we have no wish to
distress or annoy our good neighbours who have
40
made these applications, but at the same time we
have some misgivings; we are therefore writing to
you with a degree of regret and reluctance.
Our concerns are principally over the height, size
and bulk of the extension, both in relation to the
existing cottage, and how it may affect our
property. In our opinion, the extension appears to
be out of scale to the rear of the cottage with its
cat-slide roof and low level eaves. The pair of
cottages are relatively unusual in having remained
largely unaltered, and the pair of cat-slide roofs are
an intrinsic part of their character as Listed
Buildings. It would be a pity to destroy the
symmetry of the building with a significant two
storey extension.
We also have some concern regarding the
overshadowing, and potential overlooking of our
property, due to the height of the extension and its
close proximity to the boundary in relation to our
rear garden. Reference has been made to the rear
extension of Hinton Cottage as a comparable
scheme, but it is set in the middle of the wide plot,
and well away from the boundaries so as to have
no significant effect on adjoining properties.
We are therefore obliged to register our objection
to the proposed extension of Green Pastures in its
present form, due to our perception of it as being
of too large a bulk, forming an undesirable
alteration to a Listed Building, and affecting the
amenities of adjacent Listed Buildings.
Officers Report:
This application is brought to Committee as the Officer’s recommendation is contrary
to the Parish Council’s comments.
Site Description
Green Pastures and Dewlands are a pair of semi detached Grade II listed buildings
in the Hinton Martell Conservation Area. The pair were listed in 1995 and are built of
a vernacular building material (cob) but were remodelled (according to English
Heritage) in a more formal style with sash windows, a gabled slate roof and a rear
outshut in the C19th. A prominent feature is the tall brick central and end stacks and
slender rear outshut stacks.
The two dwellings are symmetrical from the front and rear and appear to have been
essentially unchanged since that date. The Conservation Area contains these two
dwellings and Longlands (built in the 1980’s) to the west and Hinton Cottage (also
listed) to the east. There are also several undistinguished dwellings on the opposite
side of the highway which are excluded from the conservation area. Dewlands has a
detached rear garage while Green Pastures has a forecourt parking area. Hinton
41
Cottage has a single storey linked rear extension that does not break into its thatched
rear outshut permitted under Appn. 03/1121 and a large garage in the rear of the
plot.
The site is within the village envelope for Hinton Martell which is overwashed by the
South East Dorset Green Belt and the Cranbourne Chase and West Witshire Downs
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Proposal
This application is to erect a two storey rear extension on Green Pastures to provide
a half glazed dining room on the ground floor and a bedroom and bathroom
extension on the first. The extension will be timber framed with timber cladding and
oak framed glazing under a slate roof pierced by six roof lights. On the first floor the
extension will be accessed through the area currently used as a bathroom. The
extension roof will rise from near the eaves level of the existing dwelling to 6 metres
at the ridge (the existing dwelling has a ridge height of 6.7 metres) and project 5
metres beyond the existing outshut. There is an accompanying householder
application for this extension (3/11/ 0666)
History
The dwellings appear to have been unchanged since the C19th and the survival of
the symmetry of the pair is remarkable given the lateness of the listing.
An informal submission in October 2010 proposed a similar extension to the current
application. The advice tendered after consultation with the Design and Conservation
Officer was that while the proposal was for a lightweight structure to reduce the
impact on historic fabric it was clearly the restrained symmetry of the pair that
enhanced their contribution to the conservation area. The proposal would dissolve
that symmetry and introduce a large extension that would challenge the principal
listed building and erode its historic and architectural interest. For this reason an
application could not be encouraged.
In a further exchange it was opined that there may be scope for a very modest single
storey rear extension that followed the form of the existing rear outshut but that in the
officer’s opinion it was impossible to envisage any form of two storey extension that
would not harm the architectural interest and character of this pleasant pair of
dwellings that make a significant contribution to the conservation area. This
application was subsequently received.
Considerations
The separation of the proposed extension from the village infilling boundary and the
Green Belt and AONB to the rear of the site is sufficient to prevent harm. In his
measured response the Design and Conservation Officer considers the design
approach is not without merit although the effect upon the neighbouring property
‘Dewlands’ is discussed further on in this report. The extension will not be prominent
from the public highway and given the distance from any other viewpoint he opines it
will not directly affect the character of the wider conservation area.
42
The principal consideration is the effect upon this designated heritage asset and
whether that harm can be offset against any other factor. The dwellings are a striking
pair of survivors with the shallow roof, landmark stacks and mannered fenestration
seen in much larger formal houses. They have immediately apparent genteel charm,
and the Agent has reproduced the listing assessors report in the heritage statement,
which acknowledges how intact the buildings are both internally and externally
following the C19th remodelling, including the rear elevations.
While the design has its merits, the question is whether the proposal maintains the
special interest of the historical asset through the quality of the design and the use of
the materials. The approach is workmanlike and honest but is not so outstanding as
to justify the loss of historic context entailed in breaking into the existing outshut roof,
worsened by the visual impact and the loss of the symmetry of the pair. The Design
and Conservation Officer considers that while the original element of the dwelling
remains essentially unaffected, the new extension would radically affect the character
of the building by covering part of the ‘cat slide’ feature and adding an entirely new
feature of a size that appears disproportionate to the cottage, disrupting the unity and
clarity of form and materials of both cottages
The Design and Conservation Officer has visited the site and confirms the dwelling
has three first floor bedrooms and a bathroom albeit with severely restricted
headroom. The current first floor facilities therefore appear adequate for everyday
living. Like its neighbour it is currently in use as a family home.
Para. HE9.4 of PPS5 requires that where a proposal has the potential to cause less
than substantial harm it is necessary to weigh that harm against the public benefit of
the proposal. The greater the harm to the significance of the asset the greater will be
the justification needed for any loss. Para. HE 9.1 of PPS5 states that ‘loss affecting
any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.’
It appears that the thrust of the above paragraphs is that any ‘less than substantial
harm’ to a heritage asset can only be justified where (in this instance) it would help
‘to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of its long
term conservation’. The optimum use of the asset (which would attract an
appropriate level of maintenance) is as a dwellinghouse. The dwelling currently has
an upstairs bathroom, albeit a cramped one, and two larger and one smaller
bedroom. This is similar to many listed properties. It is acknowledged that having a
further more spacious bedroom and a bathroom with good headroom would enhance
the experience of living in this charming dwelling but there are already the facilities
available for normal family life, therefore its long term viability does not appear to be
at risk. There are essential facilities on the first floor so that younger members need
not navigate the stairs during the hours of darkness. In addition officer advice has
been that a modest first floor extension that could accommodate a larger
bathroom/wet room may be acceptable, depending upon design.
In making the decision to purchase and live in a listed property it is necessary to
accept some limitations regarding what changes can be made without losing the
essential qualities that led to the building being listed. Unfortunately any appraisal of
the proposal must conclude that the improvement in living conditions afforded by the
extension is insufficient justification compared to the substantial harm caused by the
loss of historic context and the visual impact upon the architectural interest of this
43
pair of dwellings. In summary there is no public benefit in the wider definition that is
sufficiently overriding to compensate for the demonstrable harm to the architectural
and historic interest of this listed building by erecting this extension as required by
PPS5.
Regarding the design of the extension, the principal consideration is whether the
proposal is acceptable in terms of Policy DES8 of the Local Plan. This form of rear
extension cutting into the outshut is often used as a means of providing further first
floor accommodation on single pile dwellings. What is unusual is the projection of the
rear extension at 5 metres, which appears excessive. The assumption is that the
linking of the extension roof to the current eaves is to minimise the loss of context
from the existing catslide, but this results in an impression that the extension is ‘semi
detached’ from the main range.
If this application was not for a listed building Officer advice may be to reduce the
projection to three metres beyond the ground floor outshut and to spring the
extension ridge directly from the rear roof plane to better integrate the two forms and
incorporate a bathroom at the junction, but this approach would unfortunately
increase the loss of historic context. In this instance it is considered that the attempt
to minimise the impact upon the historic fabric has resulted in an over long extension
that is poorly co-ordinated to the historic core and would have an oppressive effect
upon the amenities of the adjoining occupiers due to the excessive rear projection
and subsequent two storey bulk.
The Applicant has submitted a further supporting statement dated 16 August. This
extends the arguments already put forward including the need for better bathroom
facilities on the first floor and that there are no compelling reasons for retaining the
present symmetry at the rear and the requirement that listed buildings should be
allowed to sensitively evolve. The first is discussed above while the Council’s
response to the second is that such change should be sufficiently gradual not to
erode the significance of the heritage asset, which this proposal unfortunately fails to
do.
Recommendation:
REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-
Reasons:1
The construction of the proposed two storey rear extension would cause
disproportionate harm to the significance of this listed building compared to
the degree of public benefit obtained contrary to the guidance contained in
Para. HE9.4 of Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic
Environment due to the loss of historic context from the rear roof and the
effect of the excessive depth, height and bulk of the proposed extension on
the architectural interest and symmetry of this listed building and its neighbour,
Dewlands. Furthermore, the Applicant has failed to provide the clear and
convincing justification for this harm required by Para. HE9.1 due to the
existing evidence that the dwelling and its neighbour, Dewlands, are capable
of providing viable residential use in their present form due to the
accommodation available on the first floor of the dwelling and the potential for
providing any further services in a less harmful form. The proposal is therefore
also contrary to S.16 (2) of the Planning (Historic Buildings and Conservation
44
Areas) Act 1990 which states: ‘The LPA shall have special regard to the
desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special
architectural or historic interest which it possesses’ and also contrary to Policy
HE9.1 contained in PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment which states:
‘There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated
heritage assets’.
2
Due to the excessive depth of the proposed two storey extension at 5 metres
beyond the existing rear elevation the proposal would have an unacceptable
overbearing effect when viewed from the rear amenity area of the
neighbouring property, Dewlands, worsened by the modest height of the rear
elevation of that dwelling and the existing symmetry of the two buildings.. Due
to this bulk, height and visual impact the proposal would fail to improve its
immediate surroundings or harmonise with the area in which it is set contrary
to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan and fail to take the opportunity to
improve the character and quality of the area contrary to Planning Policy
Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development.
Informatives:
1
This application has been appraised against the guidance contained in PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: DES8
Item Number:
9.
Ref:
3/11/0678/FUL
Proposal:
Excavation of 3 Ponds for Conservation Purposes and the
Formation of Landscaped Bunds from the Excavated
Material (as amended by plan rec'd 18/8/11)
Site Address:
Land Off Bingham Close, Verwood, Dorset, for East Dorset
District Council
Constraints
Bournemouth International Airport
Heathland 400m
Consultation Area
Heathland 5km Consultation Area
Environment Agency Flood Zones Green Belt LP NATS
Technical Sites Open Space Sites of Special Scientific
Interest Urban Areas LP
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
12 August 2011
8 August 2011
45
Verwood Town Council
Comments:
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Tree Section
Support for the following reasons:
Good for residents, for conservation, education,
recreation and for the community
I have no arboricultural objections.
The proposed ponds are located outside of the root
protection areas of the adjacent salient trees and
the installation of protective fencing at the specified
locations would ensure that these trees are afforded
sufficient protection throughout development.
Taking the above into consideration, please include
the following condition should you be minded to
approve this application.
Natural England
The proposed ponds are not likely to have a
significant effect on European sites or the SSSI
features of these heathland sites.
The proposed ponds, in isolation, would be
conducive to the conservation and enhancement of
the special interest of the SSSI. Concerned that in
the wider context these benefits become marginal;
the ponds can not act as a pollution control
measure for the river SSSI and might be contrary to
policies V36 and WENV4. Requests that
replacement actions to mitigate the quality of urban
run off be secured.
Environment Agency
No objection subject to conditions
Sport England
Any response to be reported to Committee
Dorset Wildlife Trust
Fully supports the creation of three ponds for
conservation purposes and considers that the
scheme will provide significant enhancements to the
wetland habitat and a corresponding increase in
biodiversity.
DWT does not support the introduction of water
voles as conservation benefits as the causes of the
original decline in this location have been both
understood and remedied.
Neighbour Comments:
Mrs Hilary R Chittenden In support
Resthaven, Burrows Lane
Strongly support the planning proposals to bring this
previously derelict land into favourable ecological
46
value. They will make a significant contribution to
enhancing the Potterne Park area and the
biodiversity of the Crane/Moors River valley.
The proposals were discussed in some detail at an
Environment Theme Action Group meeting (minutes
attached) and, as you will see, they were supported
unanimously. Please see item 2 on p4. Members
attending included representatives from Verwood
Town Council (Cllr Jane Russell) and Dorset
Wildlife Trust (Nicki Brunt).
Officers Report:
This application comes before the Committee because it relates to development by
the Council on Council owned land.
The Site
The site comprises 0.7hectares of public open space above the River Crane, east of
Verwood Road and south of Bingham Drive. The majority of the land is within the
flood zone and vegetation clearance has recently taken place. There is an existing
raised footpath leading from Verwood Road to properties in Bingham Drive. The site
is to be accessed from Bingham Close.
The proposal
It is proposed to excavate three linked ponds for nature conservation purposes.
Permeability tests of the site have shown that local geology will enable the formation
of ‘natural’ ponds, filled by local water runoff including a pipe draining small local
accumulations of water. The ponds are shown to have gentle gradients and a
maximum depth of 1.4m.
Spoil from the ponds will be used to create 3 localised flood refuge bunds to provide
escape islands for water voles and additional contoured and landscaped bunds along
the north of the site outside of flood zone 3. Permission is required because the
works represent engineering operations.
The proposal is part of a wider project which aims to offset the effects of intensive
development within Verwood by providing additional recreational and educational
opportunities for residents. As well as the ponds that are the subject of this
application the project includes the erection of boundary fencing to deter fly tipping,
the re-introduction of Water Vole to the Moors River System SSSI and improved
recreation facilities at Potterne including the provision of play structures.
Planning Considerations
The proposed development is within the green belt so Planning Policy Guidance
Note 2 (PPG2) applies. Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for Open Space,
Sport and Recreation (PPG17) is relevant because the land is designated as open
space, as are PPS25: Flooding and PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
because of the adjacent river which forms part of the Moors River System SSSI.
Local saved policy DES8 requires that any proposal should be compatible with its
surroundings and adjacent trees and properties.
47
Flooding
The application is accompanied by a flood risk assessment which concludes that the
overall effect of the scheme will be an enhanced river hydraulic performance. The
proposed excavation volume of the ponds is 641.8 cubic metres which, together with
vegetation clearance, will outweigh the impact of the three raised refuges adjacent to
the ponds with a cumulative volume of 56.5 cubic metres. The other bunds with a
volume of 698.2 cubic metres can be accommodated beyond flood zone 3. No
objection has been raised by the Environment Agency but they request a condition
requiring the submission of a more detailed method statement for all temporary
works within the flood plain.
Biodiversity
The site lies within 400m of heathland areas that form part of the Holt and West
Moors Heaths SSSI but Natural England has confirmed that the proposed
development would not be likely to have a significant effect on the European sites the
SSSI features of these heathland sites.
The proposal lies adjacent to the Moors River System SSSI which has been
designated for its geological diversity and the biological diversity it supports. PPS9
requires that SSSIs should be given a high degree of protection by the planning
system. It is intended that the ponds will provide additional wetland habitat for
indigenous fauna and flora and Natural England has confirmed that the ponds could
provide additional habitat for dragonfly and damselfly species which is a special
interest feature of the SSSI and may increase the occurrence of other breeding
populations. They caution, however, that the ponds are only likely to have a limited
function in holding refuge populations of certain species should the river habitat
suffer adverse conditions such as pollution and they are therefore concerned to
ensure that actions to mitigate the quality of urban water runoff to the SSSI which
was the underlying aim of policy V36 ‘Land at Potterne will be developed as a
pollution control reed bed’ remain on the political agenda. As the land on which the
proposed ponds are to be sited would not be suited to a reed bed being too restricted
in size and having a mains sewer beneath it, the proposed development is not
contrary to saved policies V36 and WENV4.
As tree removal relating to the project has already taken place it is not necessary to
add the Environment Agency's note on Bat protection to any decision certificate.
Part of the intention of this project is to provide additional habitat to support water
vole on the river. Although the best means of supporting the water vole population is
disputed there is agreement that the pond creation and natural colonisation of
indigenous aquatic plant species is likely to assist local biodiversity.
Green Belt
The proposed ponds and associated bunds will maintain the openness of the green
belt as required by PPG2. With undulating heights and a maximum height 1.8m
above existing uneven land level the landscaped bunds will not injure the visual
amenities of the green belt.
48
Open Space and Trees
The land is designated as public open space and it has an informal character. The
only existing formal public footpath runs from Verwood Road along the top of the
application site to the rear of houses in Bingham Drive. There is evidence that the
land has recently been used for fly tipping. The proposed ponds and bunds will
improve the visual appearance of the area whilst maintaining its informal character
and increasing opportunities for biodiversity. The ponds have a gentle gradient so
they will not represent a hazard for visitors. The application therefore accords with
the aims of PPG17.
A number of trees are sited along the northern edge of the application site. Attention
has been paid to their root protection areas to avoid harm during the construction
process.
Impact on neighbours
Glimpses of the rear garden and property ‘Rischale’ on Verwood Road already exist
from the public footpath following vegetation clearance and the potential for
additional overlooking by people walking on the raised bunds can be avoided by
strategic planting. The rear gardens of properties on Bingham Drive are already
open, screened only by a post and rail fence. No objections have been received
from local residents.
Conclusion
The proposed ponds represent an opportunity to improve the local environment for
Verwood residents whilst encouraging improved biodiversity which is compatible with
the Moors River SSSI. It is supported by the parish council and recommended to
Members for approval.
Recommendation:
GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the
purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the
Tree Officer and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of the
trees in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan, ref: 1287/327 and dated
April 2011. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown on the Tree
Protection Plan before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought
onto the site for the purposes of the development. It shall be retained until the
development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor
shall any ground levels be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without
the written consent of the planning authority.
Reason: To protect trees which contribute to local amenity.
49
3
Prior to development a landscaping scheme showing the planting of additional
trees and shrubs and the provision of fences shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall
be carried out during the planting season October-March inclusive (in
accordance with appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking
etc in BS4428:1989 (1979)) immediately following the formation of the
proposed bunds. Any plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five
years are to be duly replaced and the whole scheme thereafter retained.
Reason: To ensure that screening and deterrent planting is established to
protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers.
4
Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed method statement for
all temporary works within the flood plain of the River Crane shall be submitted
to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement
shall include details of the timing of works, and all temporary works associated
with the construction of the ponds, to include the temporary storage of spoil
arising from the excavation of the ponds. Thereafter the development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved method statement and any
subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning
authority.
Reason: To ensure no increase in flood risk during the construction of the
proposed development.
5
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
1287/324B, 1287/326A, 1287/328, 1287/327
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning
Informatives:
1
In addition to the policies listed below, in reaching this decision the Council
has had regard to national planning policy, namely Planning Policy Guidance
Note (PPG) 2: Green Belts, PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and
Recreation, Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological
Conservation and PPS25: Flooding
2
Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage
Byelaws the prior written consent (Flood Defence Consent) of the
Environment Agency is required for any proposed works (permanent or
temporary) or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the
bank, or within the flood plain, of the River Crane, designated a ‘main’ river.
The need for this consent is in addition to0 planning consent. The applicant is
advised to contact Claire Aldridge on 01258 483384 to discuss the scope of
Environment Agency controls.
50
3
The Moors River is currently designated as poor status under the Water
Framework Directive (2003) and the Crane as good status. The Water
Framework Directive requires no deterioration in the ecological status of
aquatic systems, and seeks to ensure that development does not compromise
the ability to achieve good ecological status, whilst also contributing to
achieving good status.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: DES8 WENV4 V36
Item Number:
10.
Ref:
3/11/0706/HOU
Proposal:
Raise level of rear garden and instate new boundary wall
with plants behind and protection fence behind the plants on
garden side
Site Address:
134 Bridle Way, Colehill, Wimborne, for Mr Chris Holland
Constraints
Bournemouth International Airport
Heathland 5km
Consultation Area Historic Contaminated Land Heathland
5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites
Urban Areas LP
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
21 August 2011
Colehill Parish Council
Comments:
Object
Potential hazard, encroaching the highway and out of
character with the area.
Consultee Responses:
County Highways
Development Liaison Officer
15 August 2011
No objection regarding impact on the visibility
available from the nearby junction. Structural stability
of the retaining wall is a concern and additional
information is required to assess this aspect.
Neighbour Comments:
None
Officers Report:
This application comes to committee as the Parish Council has objected and the
Officer recommendation is for approval.
51
The proposal is to retain the existing timber clad retaining wall that has been built
immediately adjacent to the pavement, and set back the existing timber panel fence
that exists above it. This panel fence will be set back 1m from the retaining wall and
pavement edge and planter boxes are to be placed between the rear of the retaining
wall and front of the panel fence. These are to be planted with conifers of medium
rate growth potential to soften the appearance of the panel fencing. The overall
height of the retaining wall and panel fencing is shown not to exceed 2m above the
level of the pavement outside the site.
The proposed wall/fence/planting is to be constructed across the majority of the rear
boundary of this property, and a timber clad wall will form the part adjacent to the
existing garage.
Ground levels at the site fall from north west to south east, and the rear boundary of
the adjacent property at 132 Bridle Way is formed by tall and thick vegetation.
However there are various boundaries in the area including some timber fencing.
Prior to the construction of the wall/fence that had been erected without planning
permission, the rear boundary of the application site was provided by a brick wall that
appeared to be approx. 1200mm tall (from photos supplied with the previous
application). This was set back from the pavement, with no meaningful landscaping
in front of it, and a section of timber fencing was attached to the top of part of this.
This wall was not parallel with the road, but had a saw tooth profile when viewed from
above.
The application follows a refused proposal to retain a part rendered/part block
retaining wall with fence panels attached to the top of it, which was in the same
position as the existing unauthorised timber clad retaining wall. This was considered
under delegated powers and related to application 3/10/0961. The wall/fence was
refused as the site is located on a prominent corner location adjacent to Bridle Way,
and the boundary wall and fencing that was to be retained was considered
unacceptable on account of its height and elevated position immediately adjacent to
the pavement, which presented a stark and visually intrusive form of boundary
treatment that is at odds with the character of the immediate area. The proposal was
therefore viewed as contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, as it
was incompatible with its surroundings in terms of its scale and failed to harmonise
with the general character of the area.
The current proposal has resulted from extensive negotiation with the applicant and
is now considered to present a boundary treatment that would be compatible with the
immediate area. It has a section of fencing that does not significantly exceed the 1m
high permitted development threshold, with planting above which will serve to soften
the panel fence set back behind. This panel fence is shown to be between 1100mm
and 1500mm above the level of the garden to the rear of the retaining wall, however
this height will not be apparent from Bridle Way due to the screening provided by the
retaining wall and planting.
The visual impact of the boundary treatment will be softened by the design now
proposed, and in a relatively short time the panel fencing at the rear will be screened
and the boundary will appear as a fence of modest height with vegetation above.
This is considered to be appropriate for the locality and no adverse visual impact is
52
expected. The proposal will comply with Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan
accordingly.
During the last application, Dorset County Highways ascertained that the wall/fence
did not obstruct visibility at the junction to the north west (which serves 122 to 134
Bridle Way), and the current proposal does not either.
DCC Highways have now asked for structural calculations and/or additional
information on the current application so they may ascertain if the wall is safe and the
applicant has again been asked to provide these. The structural stability of the wall
is not strictly a planning matter. Therefore it is advised that this matter should be
resolved between DCC Highways and the applicant.
Recommendation:
GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:1
The existing retaining wall and fencing along the highway frontage shall be
demolished and all materials resulting from the demolition removed from the
site within 3 months of the date of the failure to meet the following
requirement:i)
Within 3 months of the date of this decision, the existing fence and its
supporting posts that currently sit on top of the retaining wall shall be removed
and the fencing and planters hereby approved shall be constructed and placed
on the site in the approved positions. The approved enclosure and planting
shall be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory boundary treatment is achieved at the site
within a reasonable time period in the interests of visual amenity.
2
Before the development hereby authorised is commenced, details of the
species, planting density and planting size of the proposed planting shall be
submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. Upon approval
the planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March
inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground
preparation, staking, etc., in BS4428:1989 (1979), immediately following
commencement of the development.
The planting shall thereafter be
maintained for five years during which time any specimens which are
damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall
thereafter be retained.
Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the
locality.
Informatives:
1
The applicant is advised that Dorset County Council Highways have yet to be
satisfied that the retaining wall has been constructed satisfactorily in terms of
53
its structural stability in the interests of the safety of pedestrians and users of
the pavement and highway adjacent to the wall. Therefore the applicant
should contact Mr John Burridge, Principal Engineer, Bridge Management,
Dorset County Council Tel: 01305 225366 for advice.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: DES8 TRANS2
Item Number:
11.
3/11/0735/FUL
Ref:
Proposal:
Renewal of Temporary Planning Permission (06/0603/FUL)
for Covered Storage Units and Cold Stores for a Further 10
Year Period
Site Address:
Visitors Centre, Moors Valley Country Park, Ashley Heath, for
EDDC
Constraints
Bournemouth International Airport
Heathland 5km
Consultation Area Green Belt LP Historic Contaminated
Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS
Technical Sites Open Space
Site Notice expired:
Advert expired:
Nbr-Nfn expired:
31 August 2011
St Leonards And St Ives
Parish Council Comments:
To be reported
Consultee Responses:
EDDC Public Health Housing And Pollution
EDDC Tree Section
29 August 2011
To be reported
No objections:
The previously granted consent (06/0603/FUL)
identified no arboricultural implications for this
development.
As this is a renewal of that original consent, I have no
arboricultural objections.
Neighbour Comments:
None
54
Officers Report:
The application is before the Committee for determination as the application involves
land belonging to East Dorset District Council.
This proposal seeks to retain temporary, covered storage units to the side of the
existing Visitor Centre at Moors Valley Country Park; granted in 2006 under PA
reference 3/06/0603, for a further 10 year period.
The site lies within the Green Belt. Settlement Policy E of the Bournemouth, Dorset
and Poole Structure Plan 2000 states that development should be contained within
the built-up areas. The purpose of the Green Belt is to protect the separate physical
identity of individual settlements. Within the Green Belt there is a presumption
against inappropriate development. Policy GB2 of the East Dorset Local Plan states
that development is inappropriate if it does not maintain the openness of the land and
any new development is inappropriate unless it is for the purposes of '(b) essential
facilities for outdoor sport and recreation'.
The covered storage to be retained comprises a dry goods store (3.1m x 2.2m), a
linked, chill store (2m x 3.1m) and freezer (4.2m x 2.2m) within an enlarged, fenced
enclosure to the north of the existing restaurant kitchen. The further temporary period
of time sought for the food storage facility is 10 years.
The agents submit: ‘The present use has continued unchanged from the original
approval date and the area of the fenced enclosure of the Cold Stores has provided
effective in screening the stores, refuse and recycling bins.
The supporting information provided at the time of the original application still stands
in that the Health and Safety report and Fire Risk Assessment submitted at that time
identified manual handling and bulk storage problems which the approved facility has
helped to mitigate’.
As stated above, the site lies within the Green Belt, where careful consideration
should be given to the construction of new buildings. The applicant’s justification for
the additional food storage buildings has already been accepted in Green Belt terms.
The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.
Recommendation:
GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:1
This permission shall expire on 30 September 2021 by which date the use
shall have been discontinued, any associated buildings or other structures
shall have been removed from the land, and the land restored to its previous
authorised state as a fenced compound in all respects.
Reason: To reserve to the Local Planning Authority control over the long-term
use of the land.
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
55
scale 1:500 location plan, drawing 1450/01C and drawing 1450/02, .
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Policy Considerations and Reasons
In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which
currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the
East Dorset Local Plan, were taken into account. This includes specifically the
following policies: GB2 CSIDE1 DES8
3.
IMPLICATIONS
Corporate Plan & Council Objectives
3.1.
To ensure East Dorset's natural and built environment is well managed.
Legal
3.2.
The Council is the Local Planning Authority and has delegated to the Planning
Committee the responsibility for determining planning applications in
accordance with the provisions of the Local Plan, statutory and non-statutory
guidance in the form of legislation and Planning Policy Statements.
Environmental
3.3.
Any issues are contained within the body of this report.
Financial and Risk
3.4.
The risk implications relate to the potential for judicial review or
maladministration if the applications being reported have not been considered
properly in a procedural sense or there is a substantial flaw in the
consideration.
Equalities
3.5.
Planning application determination requires a positive and questioning
approach by the decision maker to equality matters. Where a particular issue
requires a focused consideration there will be a reference in the particular
report.
Background Papers: Planning application files relating to the above
applications.
56