AGENDA ITEM 2

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

THURSDAY 21st APRIL 2005

The meeting commenced at 10.00 a.m. and concluded at 3.10 p.m.

Members present:

Councillor Smith (Chairman)

Councillor Mrs Stribley (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Allen, Belcham, Mrs Deas, Eades, Gillard, Mrs Hillman, Parker, Trent and Wilson.

Also in attendance:

Councillors Clements, Mrs Lavender, Meachin, Sorton and Miss Wilson.

Members of the public present during the meeting: 49 approximately

1.MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 24 March 2005 were confirmed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

2.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Allen declared a personal interest in Agenda items 6 and 7 and Plans List item 7 as having received written representations and an acquaintance of the applicant (Item 1).

Councillor Mrs Stribley declared a personal interest in Agenda items 6 and 7 and Plans List items 1, 6, 8 and 9 as having received written representations.

Councillor Gillard declared a personal interest in Agenda items 6, 7 and 9 and in Plans List items 1, 2 and 7 as having received written representations.

Councillor Parker declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5 and in Plans List items 1 and 7 as having received written representations.

Councillor Eades declared a prejudicial interest in Plans List item 5 because he lived opposite the site. A personal interest in Agenda items 6 and 7 and Plans List items 1, 2 and 7 having received written representations.

Councillor Belcham declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 and Plans List items 1,2 and 7 having received written representations.

Councillor Mrs Hillman declared a prejudicial interest in Plans List item 3 because she lived in a neighbouring property. A personal interest in Agenda items 6 and 7 and Plans List items 1, 2, 6 and 7 having received written representations.

Councillor Mrs Deas declared a personal interest in Agenda items 4, 5 and 9 and Plans List items 1, 2, 5 and 7 having received written representations.

Councillor Trent declared a personal interest in Agenda items 6 and 7 and Plans List items 1 and 2 having received written representations including emails.

Councillor Wilson declared a personal interest in Agenda items 6 and 7 and Plans List items 7 and 8 having received written and verbal representations.

Councillor Smith declared a personal interest in Agenda items 5 and 9 (the owner of 31 Western Avenue had made a £500 donation to the Mayor’s Charity when he was Mayor) and Plans List Items 1-7 having received written and verbal representations.

3.LAND 4 NAIRN ROAD CANFORD CLIFFS (APPLICATION NUMBER. 09265/004)

The Committee had visited the site prior to the meeting.

Councillor Sorton, Ward Councillor, stated that the site visit had highlighted the effect that the development would have on the owner of 2D Nairn Road. He maintained his objection that the application was overbearing and would alter the character and appearance of Nairn Road.

Members agreed that the site visit had been useful because it highlighted the concerns of objectors and were unanimous that the application should be refused because it conflicted with policies BE1 and H4 in relation to mass, scale and height and would be intrusive to the character and appearance of Nairn Road

AGREED

REFUSED for the following reason

The proposed development would constitute overdevelopment of the site by reason of its excessive scale, mass and height which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies BE1 and H4 of the Poole Local Plan Final Amendment 2004.

4.LAND OFF 86-90 CHURCHILL ROAD, BRANKSOME (APPLICATION NO. 35179/004)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning Design and Control Services on negotiations that had taken place with the applicant following the meeting of the Committee held on 27th January 2005.

The Case Officer explained that revised plans to re-site the proposed dwellings to allow for each dwelling to accommodate up to two car spaces within clearly defined curtilages had been received. These dwellings were detached and preserved the reasonable amenities of adjoining residential properties.

Councillor Mrs Lavender, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the objectors on the grounds that Beaconsfield Road was very narrow. Also that the development remained contrived with no open space provision which was needed locally because there was a lack of open space.

Members considered that the revised application was an improvement but still had concerns regarding access on to Beaconsfield Road. Members suggested that a Section 106 Agreement be required with a contribution of £1000 towards a Traffic Regulation Order on the bend adjacent to the access to the site on highway safety grounds.

AGREED

GRANTED subject to a Section 106 Agreement plus administrative fee relating to:

ipayment of £6780 towards recreation facilities;

iipayment of £1000 towards cost of Traffic Regulation Order for the junction of the development with Beaconsfield Road; and

iiia Deed of Variation to secure dedication of land as highway

Subject to the following conditions:

1GN010 (Detailed Permission – Time Expiry 5 Years (Standard))

2GN030 (Sample Materials – Submission of Details Required)

3GN100 (No Further Windows in the Specified Elevation(s))

4GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))

5HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays)

6HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)

7HW210 (Building Operatives Parking)

8Prior to commencement of any works the construction details for the improved footway fronting the site shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and those improvements including retaining structures and proposed wall shall be completed prior to the commencement of any other works on the site.

9An arboricultural method statement prepared by an arboricultural consultant holding a nationally recognised arboricultural qualification providing comprehensive details of construction works in relation to trees shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of demolition/development. All works shall subsequently be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. In particular, the method statement must provide the following:-

a)a specification for protective fencing to trees during both demolition and construction phases which complies with BS5837: 1991 and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing;

b)a specification for scaffolding and ground protection within tree protection zones in accordance with BS5837;

c)a schedule of tree works conforming to BS3998

d)details of general arboricultural matters such as the area for storage of materials, concrete mixing and use of fires;

e)plans and particulars showing the siting of the service and piping infrastructure;

f)a full specification for the construction of an arboriculturally sensitive structures through them, including the installation of boundary treatment works, the method of construction of the access driveway including details of the no-dig specification and extent of the areas of the driveway to be constructed using a no-dig specification

10TR050 (Tree Protection – No Fires/Concrete Mixing/Storage of Materials)

11TR060 (Tree Protection – No Trenches/Pipe Runs/Alterations to Levels)

12TR090 (No Pruning Works)

13LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted)

Informative Notes

1IN4400 – Subject to Recreational/Open Space Contribution

2IN090 – Work Affecting Public Highway

3IN620 – Summary of Reasons for Decision

4IN430 – Section 106 Agreement

5.VARIATION TO SECTION 52 AGREEMENT RELATING TO 24 LYTCHETT DRIVE, BROADSTONE (APPLICATION NO. 27450/000)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning Design and Control Services on a request to vary the Section 52 Legal relating to the occupancy of a self-contained annex on land at 24 Lytchett Drive, Broadstone.

A Member stated that the definition of members of the owner/occupants family should be more precise and relate to close members of the family i.e. parents or children.

AGREED to vary the Section 52 Agreement and complete a Section 106 Agreement which allows for the use of the annex by close members of the owner/occupants family.

6.ENFORCEMENT ISSUES AT 31 WESTERN AVENUE, CANFORD CLIFFS.

The Chairman vacated the Chair for consideration of this item. The Vice Chairman took the Chair.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning Design and Control Services on the current position regarding the condition of the trees and state of the site at 31 Western Avenue, Canford Cliffs requested by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 23rd September 2004.

Councillor Mrs Deas, Ward Councillor, stated that she had a personal interest in the application because she had supported the situation of the owner of 31A Western Avenue, Canford Cliffs in respect of this matter.

Councillor Mrs Deas on behalf of the owner of 31A Western Avenue, Canford Cliffs requested that a condition be imposed in the Enforcement Notice to prohibit any further raising of ground levels or filling around the preserved trees.

The Head of Planning Design and Control Services reported that he was satisfied that the Enforcement Notice had been complied with insofar as it was necessary to secure compliance and that the health of the trees had not been affected. However, if the owner of the land does deposit further soil on or around the preserved trees then Enforcement Action could be taken under the current Enforcement Notice.

The Case Officer reported that he had visited the site this week and that the ground levels remain the same as they were when the Committee visited the site last summer.

Members supported the advice of the Council’s Officers on this matter.

AGREED to note the report.

7.PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered the applications set out in Schedule 1 of these Minutes and dealt with them as indicated therein.

8.MATTERS FOR INFORMATION

The Committee noted the following reports by the Head of Planning Design and Control Services:

  1. Confirmation of Tree Preservation Orders
  2. Appeals decisions
  3. Appeals lodged.

CHAIRMAN

SCHEDULE I

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING APPLICATIONS – 21ST APRIL 2005

Item No:1

Case Officer:Miss C Evans

Site:Land rear of 14-18 Buckingham Road, Poole, Dorset, BH12 2HR

Application No:05/28148/010/F

Date Received:23rd February 2005

Applicant:Mr & Mrs A D Christopher

Development:Erect conservatories at the rear of approved dwellings, alterations to approved garages and 2 additional carports. (Retrospective).

Ward:I 090 Alderney

The Committee visited the site prior to the meeting.

Mr Barnes, supported by Mr Cotton, represented nearby residents opposed to the approval of this retrospective planning application in respect of the erection of two conservatories at the rear of approved dwellings and alterations to approved garages and two additional car ports. The objectors stated that the narrow access was dangerous and would result in additional traffic using the access and pointed out the lack of turning space for emergency vehicles.

Mr Christopher, the applicant, explained that the key differences between the approved garage block and the proposed garage block with the additional carport was to shift the whole block toward No. 5 Boldre Close, and a shift towards Nos 1 and 2 Boldre Close by 0.3 metres and an increase in height by 0.2 metres. The proposed additional car port for two vehicles would not result in significant harm to the character of the area and the visual amenities of the neighbouring property. The two additional conservatories were located at the rear of the two detached houses and would be a distance of more that 55 metres from the neighbouring properties.

Councillors Meachin and Miss Wilson, Ward Councillors, explained that a retrospective planning application was submitted when the local residents drew it to the attention of the Planning Unit and that permission should not be granted for the reasons explained by the objectors.

Members were concerned that the applicant had proceeded with the work without planning permission. The construction of the conservatories had minimal effect on the area but Members were opposed to the construction of the car ports and the moving of the garage and car ports by 0.3 metres and an increase in height by 0.2 metres which was felt to be to the detriment of local residents.

The representative from the Head of Transport Services explained that, because of the existing usage of the access to the garages, it prevented him raising objection to the additional two car ports.

The Head of Planning Design and Control Services explained that, despite the works having been undertaken, the Committee was obliged to consider the application on its planning merits and not take into account any possible future development which would need to be subject to a planning application, nor the fact that this was a retrospective application.

AGREED

1The replacement of the four garages/replacement with six garages be refused for the following reason

The introduction of further garaging in close proximity to the boundaries of the site would result in material harm to the amenities of the area brought about by the lack of meaningful landscaping to either boundaries or front garden at the development.

2Enforcement action be taken in respect of the garages having been constructed without planning permission.

Item No:2

Case Officer:Mrs H E Harris

Site:40-42 St. Clements Road, Poole, Dorset, BH15 3PD

Application No:05/19342/005/F

Date Received:18th February 2005

Applicant:Braeside Developments

Development:Demolish existing dwellings and erect a 2-storey block of 8 flats with associated parking provision to be accessed from St. Clements Road (Revised scheme). (Amended plans received 23.3.05)

Ward:J 100 Newtown

Councillors Allen, Clements, Parker, Trent and Wilson stated that they knew the objector Mr Feltham, a Justice of the Peace, as an acquaintance.

Mr Feltham and Mrs Andrews spoke on behalf of objectors stating that the revised scheme for eight flats did not overcome the objections made by residents on the previous application and considered that it was still overdevelopment of the site.

Mr Parke, applicants agent, stated that site was suitable for flats and the revised scheme overcame the concerns raised by objectors in the previous application. In his opinion, the application would not alter the character of the area or its amenities and requested the Committee to support the Officer recommendation to grant the application.

Councillor Clements, Ward Councillor, supported the objectors stating that, if granted, it would alter the character of the area. Therefore, the application should be refused for the same reasons as the previous application last year with the exception of the reason relating to the impact upon the neighbouring property.

A Member requested a recorded vote in case the application goes to appeal and there was an award of costs against the Council.

AGREED to refuse the application for the following reasons:

  1. The proposed development, by virtue of it’s scale and massing, density and high level of built form and hard surfacing, would amount to over-development of the site and an intrusive form of building, particularly in relation to neighbouring domestic plots. This, together with the lack of residual space for landscaping, buffers to adjoining sites and useable amenity area, would be contrary to the existing character of the area and it would detract from the more spacious visual amenities of the area. In this way the proposal would conflict with the Policies BE1 and H13 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration (adopted 2004).
  1. The proposal fails to support appropriate schemes in the locality that would encourage other forms of transport to the car such as bus shelters with real time information and cycleway links within the Borough. The cumulative effect of this and other developments is likely to lead to an adverse effect on road safety or prejudice the efficiency of the public transport service. As such the proposal fails to support the aims of Central Government Advice (PPG 13) and the supporting advice of Policy T13 in the Poole Local Plan First Alteration.

3.The proposal fails to make a contribution towards the recreational facilities within the Borough, in accordance with the Policy L17 the Poole Local Plan First Alteration (Adopted 2004). As such, it would put an additional demand on existing recreational facilities in the Borough. It would be contrary to Policy L17 and set a precedent that would make it difficult for the Council to implement this Policy effectively in the future.

Five voted for the refusal: Councillors Allen, Belcham, Eades, Trent and Wilson

Four voted against refusal: Councillors Mrs Hillman, Parker, Smith and Mrs Stribley

Two abstentions: Councillors Mrs Deas and Gillard.

Item No:3

Case Officer:Mrs H E Harris

Site:29 Wroxham Road, Poole, Dorset, BH12 1NJ

Application No:05/05372/011/C

Date Received:3rd February 2005

Applicant:Mrs A Poole

Development:Change of Use of house to two self-contained flats. Erect fence. (Amended plans received 28.2.05).

Ward:G 070 Branksome West

Councillor Mrs Hillman left the room for consideration of the application as she lived in a neighbouring property.

AGREED GRANTED subject to the following condition(s)

1GN010 (Detailed Permission - Time Expiry 5 Years (Standard))

2NP050 (Noise Insulation for Building(s) - Submission of Details Required)

3HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)

4GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))

Informative Note

1IN620 (Summary of Reasons for Decision)

Item No: 4

Case Officer:Mrs H E Harris

Site:6 Wetherby Close, Broadstone, Dorset, BH18 8JB

Application No:05/10431/021/F

Date Received:3rd March 2005

Applicant:Coy Pond Developments

Development:Demolish existing and erect a 2-storey block of 6 flats with parking provision to be accessed from Wetherby Close (Revised Scheme) as amended by plans received 17.03.05.