Schedule to the Minutes of the Meeting of the Special Planning Committee Dated 29 May 2014

APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 29 MAY 2014

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO / 01
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/00362/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 3 Delhi Close, Poole, BH14 9NR
PROPOSALS / Demolish existing building and erect 4 townhouses with associated parking
REGISTERED / 21 March, 2014
APPLICANT / Fresh Homes Bournemouth Ltd
AGENT / Anders Roberts & Assoc
WARD / Penn Hill
CASE OFFICER / Darryl Howells

The Application was before the Committee at the request of Councillor Parker due to concerns of local residents.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 29 May 2014, which commenced at 11:05am and concluded at 11:20am. Councillors Eades, Brown, Burden, Parker, Mrs Wilson and Le Poidevin were in attendance.

Richard Genge, Planning and Regeneration Manager, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

Detailed plans of the proposed Scheme, as compared to the extant Scheme were displayed.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning and Regeneration Manager stated that the Proposal, by virtue of its articulation, siting and design, respected the character and appearance of the street scene and character of the area and would not result in harm to neighbouring privacy and amenities or highway safety. Car parking provision was sufficient and protected trees would be preserved.

Mr Mellery-Pratt, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

New resident to the area
Lived in property which backed onto the Application site
Had concerns regarding the extra height of the Proposal
Even the height of the extant Proposal was too high
Design would result in a lack of privacy
Properties would look into his lounge and main bedroom
Adverse effect on amenity
Loss of light/sunlight

Mr Annen, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

Gave a brief outline of the Scheme
Revised Scheme very similar to extant Scheme
Since original permission, Site had been sold and new owner had requested just a couple of minor amendments
Main difference was a new, lower ground level for Units 3 and 4
There was a slight increase in roof height.
Referred to the comments of the Inspector at Appeal
19 metre separation
No harmful overlooking
Agreed that there would be, however, a slight perception of overlooking
Happy to honour previous conditions regarding the flat roof and obscure glazing
Agreed to Landscaping Scheme
Referred to PCS32, renewable energy
Sustainable development
4 new family homes
No adverse effect on amenity, highways or trees

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

The increase in height at the rear between the extant and the proposed Scheme was 40cm
Further to condition No.4, the details of the flat roof areas and restricted access were highlighted on the screen
The distance of the boundary from the proposed balcony was 18 metres
Condition No.8 required the submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement
Condition No.12, Landscaping Scheme, was the same as with the extant Scheme

Ward Councillor Parker reminded the Meeting that he had “red carded” the proposal due to residents’ concerns regarding overlooking.

A Member stated that he had no issues with the Scheme, he added that he was pleased to note that the trees would be protected.

The Chairman stated that the revisions were not great, and that he was satisfied that overlooking would not be an issue. He added that resident concerns regarding loss of light were difficult to understand as the proposal was due north of the neighbouring property.

In summing up, Mr Mellery-Pratt expressed his concerns regarding the rear boundary treatment.

In summing up, Mr Annen clarified the landscaping Condition, which also applied to the extant Scheme.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted with CIL Contribution

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))
2. GN030 (Sample of Materials)
3. GN080 (Screening to Balcony)
4. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony)
5. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)
6. HW110 (Cycle Provision)
7. GN120 (Storage of Refuse)
8. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required)
9. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
Prior to the commencement of development details of the means of reducing energy needs of the development, in accordance with the applicant's Energy and Resources statement, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such measures could include, but not restricted to, sun pipes to internal rooms, thicker insulation, use of passive haus principles, additional solar gain or solar power, but in any event unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted shall be built to a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (or any equivalent successor). The approved details shall then be implemented and thereafter retained, unless with prior written agreement to any variation.
Prior to first occupation of the dwelling, a copy of the summary score sheet and Post Construction Review Certificate (under the Code for Sustainable Homes or its successor) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority verifying that the agreed standards have been met.
Reason
To reduce the carbon footprint and energy demands of the development and in accordance with Policies PCS31 & PCS32 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted Feb 2009.
10. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition)
11. PL01 (Plans Listing)
12. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted)
Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for approval a landscape scheme to the Southern Boundary of the site. That scheme shall ensure suitable buffer landscape to the neighbouring properties. The scheme, once approved, shall be implemented and thereafter maintained and retained.
Reasons;
In the interest of privacy to neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Site Specifics and Development Management Policies DPD.
13. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
An arboricultural construction method statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of demolition/development to demonstrate that all necessary construction works and means of retaining soil levels at existing levels within root protection areas can be achieved without incursion into these areas of retained trees. All works shall subsequently be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason -
In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that the trees to be retained on-site will not be damaged during the construction works and to ensure that as far as possible the work is carried out in accordance with current best practice and in accordance with Policy DM1 (iii) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).

Informative Notes

1. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval)
2. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)

Voting:For - Unanimous

ITEM NO / 02
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/00024/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 66 Danecourt Road, Poole, BH14 0PQ
PROPOSALS / Sever land and erect 3 No 4 bed detached houses with integral garages and 2 detached garages
REGISTERED / 13 January, 2014
APPLICANT / Lauder Property & Dorset Homes Ltd
AGENT / Anders Roberts & Assoc
WARD / Parkstone
CASE OFFICER / James Larson

The Application was before the Committee at the request of Councillor Woodcock.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 29 May 2014, which commenced at 10:35am and concluded at 10:50am. Councillors Eades, Brown, Burden, Parker, Le Poidevin and Mrs Wilson were in attendance.

James Larson, Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, details of further representations received, amended plans, protected species, informative notes, proposed conditions regarding trees and corrections to the Case Officer’s Report.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed houses would contribute positively to the surrounding area, preserve residential privacy and amenity and highway safety and would not harm significant protected trees. The Proposals were therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the Case Officer’s Report.

Amanda Corn, Objector, expressed her views, details included:

Road already busy and noisy
Back gardens were residents’ quiet, private amenity space
7 gardens would back onto this Site
Severe adverse effect on amenity
5 of the 7 parking spaces backed onto neighbouring gardens
Disabled neighbour would lose the tranquillity of her rear garden
Disturbance would have a negative impact on her health
Referred to the NPPF and PCS5 (IV)
31 feet side elevation 3 storey house, immediately adjacent to No.95.
No room for planting or screening
Severe overlooking
Severe overdevelopment
Plot sizes out of character
House No.2 had a tiny rear garden, under canopy of a large oak tree
Disagreed with Barrell Tree Consultancy regarding shading from trees
Independent tree consultant’s opinion contrary to Barrell, and state future owners of the house would be successful in having the tree felled
Driveway too close to No.64.
Wildlife on Site would be adversely affected
Proposal was completely unsuitable

Mr Henderson, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

Outlined the Proposal
Summarised the access arrangements
Proposal similar to many other approved schemes in the area
Low density proposal
Good sized plots
No adverse affect on street scene
Effective use of land
Due to orientation, no loss of daylight issues
Side screening to rear balconies
Agreed with Case Officer’s recommendations
Only a small number of vehicle movements
Numerous comparable developments in area
Highway issues assessed and deemed acceptable
Access at front of existing property would be an improvement
Arboricultural Officers had no objections
Requested that Members grant planning permission

Ward Councillor Mrs Carpenter expressed her views, details included:

Could not understand Case Officer’s recommendation
A poorly designed infill scheme
Overdevelopment
At the moment, gardens were quiet and tranquil
Rear plot at present similar to natural meadow
Loss of light/privacy
Too close to boundary
Maintenance issues
Middle property would touch the oak tree
Damage to root systems
Obstruction of natural light
Limited parking
3 units too many, 2 might be acceptable
Asked Members to listen to local residents and refuse planning permission.

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

The Arboricultural Officer referred to the Barrell Tree Consultancy Report and confirmed that the Proposals were acceptable and that there would be no harmful impact on trees.
Officers were unaware of any flooding issues on Site
The Arboricultural Officer stated that, in the future, residents would be able to apply for permission to prune the oak tree on plot 2 of the proposed development.
Objectors images of the plots were taken with a wide-angled lense, and therefore did not give an accurate picture of tree coverage. Members were reminded of the Site at the recent Members Site visit.
The position of the water ditch was highlighted on the screen.

A Member stated that, at the Site Visit, it was clear that the Site was a tranquil area, and that the Proposal would result in an adverse effect on neighbouring amenity. In addition, she had concerns regarding car parking and the siting of the access road.

A Member agreed with comments about amenity and that the plots would be smaller than surrounding properties. She added that in her opinion, 2 houses would be far more acceptable.

A Member added that he had concerns regarding protected wildlife and the car parking proposals were too close to neighbouring properties. He added, however, that he had no problems with the proposed plot sizes.

The Chairman stated that he shared many of the concerns expressed by neighbours and described the proposal as “an unneighbourly development”.

Amanda Corn summed up her views, details included:

No reason to squash 3 properties onto the Site
1 or 2 properties might be acceptable
Not anti development per se but anti over-development
Urged Members to vote against the Officer recommendation

Mr Henderson summed up his views, details included:

Development not cramped
Open plot, ideal for development
No view of the Proposals from outside the Site
Good amenity compared to other recently approved similar schemes

On being put to the vote, the Officer recommendation to approve was LOST.

Voting:For – 0Against – 8 Abstentions – 1

Members continued by discussing reasons for refusal, details included:

Cramped layout
Poor parking and access
Too close to neighbouring properties
Unneighbourly
Over prominent
Adverse effect on amenity

RESOLVED , contrary to Officer recommendation, to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1 - The proposed development by reason of its cramped layout, parking and access in close proximity to neighbouring properties, and unneighbourly dominance of built form in close proximity to properties in North Road would result in the over development of the site harmful to its immediate surroundings and the amenities of adjoining properties as well as harmful to the reasonable enjoyment of the dwellings proposed. The proposals are therefore contrary to policies PCS 05 and PCS 23 of the Poole Core Strategy and policy DM1 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management DPD.

Informative – amend to include all refused plans including those listed in addendum sheet

Voting:For - Unanimous

ITEM NO / 03
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/00185/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 4 Macandrew Road, Poole, BH13 7JQ
PROPOSALS / Demolish all existing buildings and erect 2 No 5 bed detached houses with garages. Amended plans rec'd 24th April 2014and 7th May 2014
REGISTERED / 18 February, 2014
APPLICANT / Mr Handley
AGENT / Anders Roberts & Assoc
WARD / Canford Cliffs
CONSERVATION AREA / Canford Cliffs
CASE OFFICER / Caroline Palmer

The Application was before the Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Haines due to residents’ concerns.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site Visit on 29 May 2014 which commenced at 11:30am and concluded at 11:50am.

Councillors Eades, Brown, Burden, Parker, Le Poidevin and Mrs Wilson were in attendance.

Richard Genge, Planning and Regeneration Manager, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet, and, in particular, details of additional letters received in relation to amended plans.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning and Regeneration Manager stated that, for the reasons given in the planning judgement Section of the Report, the Proposals were considered to comply with the provisions of the relevant planning policies in the Core Strategy and the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Mr Dewsbury, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

Material loss of light from proposed Unit No.1
Material reduction to privacy, from proposed Unit 2
Adverse impact on the character of the area
A plan was highlighted which showed loss of light and additional privacy issues following receipt of the amended plan
An image was displayed illustrating loss of light from property No.1, as viewed from the first floor bedroom
An image was displayed illustrating loss of light from proposed Unit No.1, as viewed from the ground floor kitchen/dining area.
An image was displayed illustrating the loss of light as taken from the kitchen/dining side door
Proposed bedroom window would look into his master bedroom
Images were displayed illustrating loss of privacy from proposed Unit No.2
Surprised at the Case Officer’s remarks regarding no material harm regarding light
Mature trees would be removed
The fact that the development not consistent
Relentless removal of trees and increase in density of housing in the area

Mr Annen, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

Case Officer had recommended approval
Only here at Committee because it had been “red carded”
Application Site currently out of character with the street scene
Existing plot did not “address” either road
All other plots had been sub-divided
Clear opportunity to develop
Proposal would contribute to the prevailing pattern of development
No material harm to light or outlook
Large hedge on boundary meant that there would be no additional loss of light
Acceptable in terms of trees
Requested Members grant planning permission

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

The Proposals were 2.2 metres higher than the existing property
Trees to be removed were not protected
Existing property was 1 metre off the boundary, whilst the proposed units would be 2 metres off the boundary

Ward Councillor Mrs Haines stated that she had sympathy for the Objector, however, she was more concerned about the effect on the neighbour at No.55 Cliff Drive. She added that, in her opinion, the neighbour would suffer from loss of light.

A Member stated that he had no issues at the Site Visit, the Proposals were in keeping with the character of the area, affected trees were not subject to TPO’s and could be felled at any time. He added that the Proposals would enhance the street scene, especially in Bodley Road.

The Chairman stated that the proposed relationships between the new properties to neighbouring properties was quite normal in an urban situation. He added that the trees were not protected and that the Proposals sought to replicate the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

Mr Dewsbury summed up his views, details included:

Proposal would result in a brick wall down the side of his property
Adverse impact on his amenity
Currently, only 1 property on the Site, 2 properties were not acceptable.

Mr Annen summed up his views, details included: