AGENDA ITEM 2
BOROUGH OF POOLE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
14 DECEMBER 2006
The Meeting commenced at 9:30am and concluded at 3:45pm.
Present:
Councillor Smith (Chairman)
Councillors Adams, Allen, Belcham, Eades, Gillard, Mrs Hillman, Leverett (substituting for Councillor Parker), Mason, Mrs Stribley, Trent, White and Wilson.
Also present:
Councillors Adams, Brooke, Mason and Sorton.
Members of the public present: 46 approximately.
1.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Parker.
2.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Smith declared a personal interest in Plans List items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as having received written representations and been lobbied. Item 2 as a Member of the Licensing Sub-Committee that considered the Licensing application for Poole Town Football Club. Item 3, the objector, Mr Bryant, was known to him.
Councillor Gillard declared prejudicial interests in Plans list items 2 and 3 having had meetings with objectors and the applicant and personal interests in Plans list items 1, 6 and 12 having been lobbied.
Councillor Allen declared personal interests in Plans List items 2, 3 and 7, having received written representations and a prejudicial interest in Plans List item 13 because the property was adjacent to his business property.
Councillor Eades declared personal interests in Plans List items 2 having received written representations and because he was an acquaintance of the Applicant’s representative and Plans List items 3 and 7 having received written representations.
Councillors Belcham and Mrs Hillman declared personal interests in Plans List items 2 and 3 having received written representations.
Councillor White declared a personal interest in Plans List items 2, 3, 5 and 7 having received verbal and written representations.
Councillor Mrs Stribley declared a personal interest in Plans List items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 having received written and/or verbal representations.
Councillor Leverett declared personal interests in Plans List items 5, 7 and 8 having received written representations.
Councillor Wilson declared personal interests in Plans List items 2, 3 and 7, having received written representations and been lobbied, and Plans List item 11 as he had been lobbied. He declared a prejudicial interest in Plans List item 5 because a member of his family lived close by.
Councillor Trent declared personal interests in Plans List items 2 and 11 having received verbal and written representations.
3.MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 November 2006 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendment:
Plans List item 7 – the words “discussions take place by the Officers with the Applicant regarding public access to the decked area” between the words “that” and “the” in the first line of the decision.
4.URGENT MATTERS
A Member enquired why the Borough’s Coat of Arms had not been fixed to the external wall of the Waterfront Museum as part of the refurbishment as required by a condition contained in the planning permission.
The Head of Planning Design and Control Services reported that he had spoken to the Head of Culture and Community Learning Services and that he would investigate the matter and let the Councillor know the action to be taken to remedy the situation.
5.PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Committee considered the Planning Applications as set out in Schedule One of the Minutes and dealt with them as indicated therein.
6.DELEGATION REVIEW WORKING PARTY
The Chairman, with the agreement of the Committee, agreed that this matter be considered at the next Meeting.
7.MATTERS FOR INFORMATION
The Committee noted the following Reports by the Head of Planning Design and Control Services:-
(i)Appeals Lodged
(ii)Appeal Decisions
(iii)Enforcement Matters
8.CONTINUATION OF MEETING
RESOLVED that the Meeting continue after 1:30pm to enable the business on the Agenda to be completed in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Council Rules of Procedure contained in the Constitution.
CHAIRMAN
SCHEDULE 1
PLANNING APPLICATIONS – 14 DECEMBER 2006
Item No:1
Case Officer:Miss C Standley
Site:57 Chaddesley Glen, Poole, Dorset, BH13 7PB
Application No:06/04612/027/F
Date Received:22nd August 2006
Agent:Trinity Architecture Marston House 2 Market Close Poole Dorset BH15 1NQ
Applicant:Britannia Properties (Canford Cliffs) Ltd
Development:Demolish existing and erect 2 detached 2/3 storey dwellings with integral garages, balconies front and rear. (Revised Scheme). As amended by plans received 16.10.06.
Ward:F 060 Canford Cliffs
Ms C Bartlett, Applicant’s Agent, stated that the application complied with the Poole Local Plan and had been revised to overcome objections to the previous application which was refused by the Committee.
Councillor Sorton, a Ward Councillor, spoke on behalf of residents of the lower part of Chaddesley Glen and read extracts from the Shoreline Character Area Policy which he considered the application contravened because of the height and width of the proposed dwellings.
Some Members were concerned about the potential of overlooking of neighbouring properties from the balconies. However, Members considered that there were similar designed properties in this part of Chaddesley Glen and that there were no good planning reasons to refuse the application.
AGREED GRANT – Subject to a Section 106 Agreement for:
A financial contribution of £2260 (plus administration fee) towards the provision of recreational facilities in accordance with Policy L17 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration (Adopted 2004).
Note: If the Section 106 Agreement is not completed speedily then the application may be refused without further reference to Committee.
Subject to the following conditions
1 - GN150 (Detailed Permission - Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard) )
2 - GN030 (Sample of Materials - Submission of Details Required )
3 - GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s) )
4 - GN100 (No Further Windows in the Specified Elevation(s) )
5 - GN080 (Screening to Balcony - Submission of Details Required )
6 - HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision )
7 - HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays )
8 - LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted )
Informative Notes
1 - IN620 - Summary of Reasons for Decision
2 - IN440 - Subject to Recreational/Open Space Contribution
3 - IN430 - Section 106 Agreement
______
Item No:2
Case Officer:Mr M Holmes
Site:Poole Town Football Club, Playing Field adj. to Oakdale School, School Lane, Poole, Dorset, BH15
Application No:06/07080/012/T
Date Received:7th August 2006
Agent:Jacobs & Reeves Beechurst 153 High Street Poole Dorset BH15 1AU
Applicant:Poole Town Football Club Ltd
Development:Retrospective application for temporary retention of prefabricated building, two sheds and prefabricated w.c cabin adjacent to the changing pavilion (Revised Scheme).
Ward:K 110 Oakdale
Councillor Gillard declared a prejudicial interest in the application because he had meetings with both objectors and the Applicant and left the Meeting.
The Committee visited the site on Wednesday 13 December 2006.
The Case Officer reported that the Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services, and the Police, raised no objection to the application.
Mr R Vincent spoke on behalf of objectors raising concern about the following issues:
- Noise and disturbance caused to neighbouring properties
- The lack of close parking facilities specifically for the Football Club resulting in street parking close to Tatnam Field
- Further incursions into the small area of remaining public open space land available to the public.
Mr C Reeves, spoke on behalf of Poole Football Club, stating that the Club had played at Tatnam Field since October 2001 and had worked closely with the school and the Borough of Poole’s Leisure Services to provide the current facilities. The application was supported by the school and the Police and the portacabin would only be used prior to and for a short period after each match and training. He considered that noise was not an issue and that the Football Club used the school car parking on match days.
A Member pointed out that Tatnam Field was a public open space and he was concerned about the small area of land now available for use by the public. Members considered that the use of the portacabin should be restricted to match days and training, together with Club Meetings with a restricted use of 2 hours prior to the start of a match and 2 hours after the finishing of a match for the use of the premises for the consumption of alcohol.
AGREED GRANT Subject to the following conditions
1 - RC050 (Personal to Applicant Limited Period )
2 – The use of the portacabin hereby approved shall be used solely as a hospitality room as detailed within the application for a period not extending beyond 2 hours before commencement and 2 hours after the conclusion of each scheduled match, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Informative Notes
1 - IN620 - Summary of Reasons for Decision
______
Item No:3
Case Officer:Mr M Holmes
Site:Tatnam Farm, Tatnam Road, Poole, Dorset, BH15 2DS
Application No:06/03713/045/F
Date Received:3rd October 2006
Applicant:Bayview Developments (Bournemouth) Ltd
Development:Erect a detached dwelling. Access from Tatnam Road (Revised Scheme).
Ward:K 110 Oakdale
Councillor Gillard declared a prejudicial interest in the application because he had held meetings with both the objectors and the Applicant and left the Meeting.
The Committee visited the site on Wednesday 13 December 2006.
The Case Officer reported that amended plans had been received re-siting the proposed building 1 metre away from the boundary of the site.
Mr R Bryant, owner of the adjacent bungalow to the proposed dwelling, spoke in opposition to the application for the following reasons:-
- The latest application was in close proximity to the boundary of his premises and was unacceptable to him.
- The proposed building would completely tower over his bungalow and be nearer to the Grade 2 Listed Farmhouse than on previous plans which were refused. There would also be potential loss of light to his backdoor and kitchen window.
Mr K Parke, Applicant’s Agent, explained that the proposal was a revised scheme from the two previously refused and that the proposed dwelling had been reduced in size and re-sited adjacent to the western site boundary with the agreement of the Conservation Officer and was supported by English Heritage. He considered that the Application would not result in any loss of light to the neighbouring bungalow and would not be dominant or overbearing within the locality.
Members considered that the application should be deferred to enable discussions to take place with the applicant to relocate the proposed dwelling further from the boundary of the bungalow.
AGREED that, subject to submission of amended plans to reposition the building further off the boundary with the adjacent bungalow (No. 84 Tatnam Road) and consultation with neighbours, then the Head of Planning Design and Control Services, in consultation with the Chairman and Ward Councillors (excluding Councillor Gillard), be authorised to grant permission, subject to:
- A financial contribution of £2260 (plus administration fee) towards the provision of recreational facilities in accordance with Policy L17 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration (Adopted 2004).
Note: If the Section 106 Agreement is not completed speedily then the application may be refused without further reference to Committee.
Subject to the following conditions
1 - GN150 (Detailed Permission - Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard) )
2 - GN030 (Sample of Materials - Submission of Details Required )
3 - GN020 (Screen Fencing/Walling - Submission of Details Required )
4 - GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s) )
5 - HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision )
6 - RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development )
Informative Notes
1 - IN620 - Summary of Reasons for Decision
2 - IN440 - Subject to Recreational/Open Space Contribution
Note: if amended plans are not received then the application be refused for the following reasons:
Due to the impact upon the neighbouring property contrary to policies BE1 and H4 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration Revised (Adopted) 2004.
______
Item No:4
Case Officer:Mr K Chilvers
Site:2 The Lodge, 4 Northshore, Panorama Road, Poole, Dorset, BH13 7RD
Application No:06/38756/002/F
Date Received:27th September 2006
Agent:A B Design The Studio 17 Curlieu Road Oakdale Poole Dorset BH15 3RJ
Applicant:Mr M Williams
Development:Form a roof terrace.
Ward:F 060 Canford Cliffs
The Committee visited the site on Wednesday 13 December 2006.
The Case Officer reported that the applicant had written to state that, if the application was granted he would be happy to rescind the approval for the recently granted first floor conservatory extension. Also that the balcony would be approximately 21.5 metres away from the facing windows on North-shore. The Case Officer also reported two further letters of representation from neighbours raising objection to the loss of privacy and the impact on the appearance of the building.
Mr K Everett, spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents, stating that they were concerned this was another application for The Lodge and was planning by instalments and was the third attempt to get more accommodation within the building. Their main concern was that the terrace would be visible from surrounding properties and would result in the loss of privacy/amenity to those properties.
Councillor Sorton, a Ward Councillor, stated that the site visit had highlighted the issues of concern from the residents and agreed with them that it was planning by instalments.
Members considered that the screen should be 1.7 metres high along the whole of the terrace.
AGREED that subject to the applicant submitting amended plans showing the obscure glazing screen 1.7 metres around the entirety of the roof terrace, then the Head of Planning Design and Control Services, in consultation with the Chairman, and Vice-Chairman be delegated authority to grant the application subject to the following conditions:
1 - GN150 (Detailed Permission - Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))
2 - GN080 (Screening to Balcony - Submission of Details Required)
Informative Notes
1 - IN620 - Summary of Reasons for Decision
Note: if amended plans are not received then the application be refused for the following reasons:-
Due to the impact upon the neighbouring property contrary to policies BE1 and H4 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration Revised (Adopted) 2004.
Item No:5
Case Officer:Mrs E Godesar
Site:155B & 157 Rosemary Road, Poole, Dorset, BH12 3HE
Application No:06/35431/005/P
Date Received:19th September 2006
Agent:Mr R J Griffin 6 Howard Road Bournemouth Dorset BH8 9DX
Applicant:Mr J Warwick
Development:Outline application to demolish existing and erect 2 detached and 2 semi-detached houses with associated parking (Revised Scheme). As amended by plan received 10/11/06.
Ward:J 100 Newtown
Councillor Wilson declared a prejudicial interest in the Application because a member of his family lived close to the site and left the Meeting.
The Committee visited the site on Wednesday 13 December 2006.
Mrs C Israel, Owner of 17 Marie Close, spoke against the application on the grounds of noise which would be caused to her property from vehicles entering the site and also was concerned that there was nowhere for children to play. She also stated that they already had sewage problems and that she was concerned that the development, if approved, would make things worse.
Councillor Clements, a Ward Councillor, asked that the following comments be read to the Committee:
“I ask the Committee to reject the application in its current form and either to refuse it or defer to seek a better use of the site, in consultation with Ward Councillors. I believe that the current proposal is less acceptable than some of the earlier versions because of the way in which the site is set out to be predominantly a car park with housing and very little other usable space. Whilst I accept that we are forced to tolerate some back-garden development and that this site might just accommodate four modest dwellings, I cannot accept that this proposal is making the best use of the available land. I am very concerned that there is provision of space for seven vehicles, all accessing the site via the pathway alongside No.155a Rosemary Road. This will present an unacceptable hazard to residents of that property. It would be better access if the site was split with some use being made of Marie Close rather than relying entirely on Rosemary Road.”
Members were concerned that there was too much level surfacing for access, turning and parking on the site and were against the access for all four dwellings being from Rosemary Road and considered that there should be access from Marie Close for two dwellings because it would provide a better layout.
AGREED TO REFUSE that application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of the siting and access proposed, would be likely to result in an un-neighbourly development materially harmful to the amenities of neighbouring development in Marie Close, and lead to potential danger to pedestrians using the access to No 155a Rosemary Road, contrary to policies BE1 and H4 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration Revised (Adopted ) 2004
2. RR010
Informative Note
IN490
______
Item No:6
Case Officer:Mr J Gilfillan
Site:87 Fernside Road, Poole, Dorset, BH15 2JQ
Application No:06/38816/001/F
Date Received:30th August 2006
Applicant:Mrs J A Scott
Development:Formation of vehicular access. (Revised Scheme)
Ward:K 110 Oakdale
Councillor Adams, a Ward Councillor, spoke in support of granting permission for the formation of vehicular access to this property because the next door property had a and dropped kerb and could see no valid reason for not granting permission for this property. He also explained the personal circumstances of the applicant that required the dropped kerb to enable his disabled mother to visit the house without having to walk 50 metres from the nearest on-street parking place.
Councillor Gillard, a Ward Councillor, supported the application because it was already been used to gain access to the property by bumping over the kerb and the applicant was being honest in applying to regularise the situation.
The representative of the Acting Head of Transportation Services reported that they objected to the proposal due to a conflict with highway safety because of the lack of space for on-site turning. Therefore, the danger associated with vehicles reversing on and off the carriageway of a busy primary route (A35) across a non-mandatory cycle lane and close to Bus Stops on both sides of the road. The proposal had also failed a safety audit.