BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

14 May 2009

The Meeting commenced at 6.00 p.m and concluded at 10.00 p.m.

Present:

Councillor Mrs Stribley (Chairman, from Minute PC12.09 onwards)

Councillor Mrs Walton (Vice-Chairman, but Chairman until Minute PC06.09)

Councillors Allen, Burden, Mrs Butt, Mrs Long, Trent, Wilkins and Wilson

Ward Councillors present that were not Members of this Committee:

Councillors Brown, Clements, Mrs Dion, Mrs Haines and Plummer

Members of the public present - 24 approximately

PC07.09 APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE

The Committee was reminded that because of the recent change in the political balance, Council, at its Annual Meeting of 12 May 2009, had agreed to increase this Committee by two Members. Accordingly, the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Mrs Walton, welcomed Councillors Burden and Trent to this Committee.

PC08.09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

None.

PC09.09 MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meetings of the Planning Committee held on 26 March 2009 and 16 April 2009 be approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

PC10.09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Allen, Burden, Mrs Butt, Long, Mrs Stribley, Walton, Wilkins and Wilson declared a personal interest in Plans List items 7 and 8, by virtue of the proximity of these two Application sites to properties occupied by fellow Councillors.

In addition: -

Councillor Long declared a personal interest in Plans List item 6, by virtue of her membership of the Congregation of St Clements Church.

Councillor Wilson declared a personal interest in the Supplementary Agenda Item discussed at Minute PC05.09 below, together with Plans List items 2 and 6, having received representations over these various items.

PC11.09 A 10m Lamp Post Swap Out (LPSO) with shrouded antennas and one telecommunications cabinet, plus a small electricity cabinet - Ringwood Road East LPSO, Ringwood Road, Poole, BH14 0RT- APP/09/00391/TE

This Application was considered as a Supplementary Agenda Item. It had been brought before the Committee as Ward Councillor Plummer had submitted a Red Card in response to concerns raised by local residents that the Application site lay within in a residential area and that an alternative position within a nearby industrial site had not been given sufficient consideration.

It was noted that additional representations had been received, particularly in the form of a Petition with 252 signatures that had requested that a more appropriate location be found.

Mr, Brown, Objector, highlighted his concerns, in respect of: -

·  The proposed siting of the mast being too close to residential properties, particularly his own property, where his boundary lay within approximately 5 metres of the proposed mast. He suggested that the Application submitted by Vodafone had wrongly given the impression that the Application site lay within a semi-cluttered industrial area;

·  Visual intrusion, in terms of the proposed mast being out of proportion to surrounding buildings;

·  The Proposed mast being unsightly;

·  The presence of an existing ‘02’ mast within the industrialised part of the nearby Franks Way. He questioned why the proposed mast could not also be sited within that location and why mast-sharing options appeared not to have been considered.

·  The possible adverse effects of protracted human exposure to mast radiation, although he acknowledged that this concern was not currently supported by conclusive medical evidence. However, he stated that, nevertheless, he was extremely concerned that the proposed mast lay within eight metres of the side of his property where his three year old child’s bedroom was situated.

Ward Councillor Clements stated that, on visiting the Application site, he had been alarmed at the close proximity of the proposed mast to Mr Brown’s property, in terms of its visual impact. He also supported Mr Brown’s suggestions for alternative solutions.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the following grounds: -

1 - RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
The applicants have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that they have considered all alternative sites or mast sharing opportunities within the locality with a view to minimising their visual intrusion to nearby residents. As such the proposed lamp post swap out is contrary to BE10 and PCS23 of the Core Strategy (as amended by the Binding Report on the Examination) adopted on 19th February 2009.

Voting 7 For, 0 Against, 2 Abstentions

(**Councillor Mrs Stribley abstained from voting on this Item as she had not been present at the start of the debate).

PC12.09 LAND AT STERTE CLOSE, POOLE – DEED OF VARIATION MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 106 AND SECTION 106A OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 25 MARCH 2008

On 25 March 2008, Planning Permission was granted to ‘Erect a block of 41 flats over 4 and 9 floors and a terrace of 3 houses with associated car parking’ on this site. This Planning Permission had been subject to a Section 106 Agreement that secured 18 of the units as affordable housing units, in terms of 13 units for Social rent and 5 units for shared ownership.

Due to the current market conditions, Knightstone Housing Association, the Registered Social Landlord (RSL) that was providing the 18 affordable homes, was no longer able to provide the 5 shared ownership included within in the 18 affordable housing units that were to be constructed under the Section 106 Agreement.

In response to the Committee’s concerns, the Council’s Housing Officer confirmed that under this Proposal, the Council would retain its influence of allocation.

RESOLVED that instructions be passed to Legal Services as soon as possible to vary the Section 106 Agreement dated 25 March 2009 to permit the occupation of the previously agreed 5 shared ownership units for either social or intermediate rent.

Voting 9 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions

PC13.09 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered the Planning Applications as set out in Schedule 1 of the Minutes and dealt with them therein.

PC14.09 APPEALS LODGED

The Committee referred to the Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services on the 12 Appeals lodged with the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government during March and April 2009.

RESOLVED that the Committee notes the above report.

PC15.09 APPEAL DECISIONS

The Committee referred to the Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services on the 14 Appeal Decisions received from the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government during March and April 2009.

RESOLVED that the Committee notes the above report.

PC16.09 MEMBERS’ PLANNING SUMMER SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

RESOLVED that Councillors Burden and Wilkins be offered the two available Planning Summer School places and that Councillor Mrs Butt be regarded as the ‘First Reserve’. (All three Councillors to be provided with details of the Members’ Summer School by Planning and Regeneration Services).

CHAIRMAN


SCHEDULE 1

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE – 14 MAY 2009

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Item No: / 1
Case Officer: / Clare Dick
Site: / Merley Court Touring Park, Merley House Lane, Poole, Dorset, BH21 3AA
Application No: / APP/08/29990/F/018
Date Received: / 18 December, 2008
Agent: / Humberts Leisure
Applicant: / Shorefield Holidays Ltd
Development: / Use of land for the siting of 12 holiday lodge caravans. (As amended by Arborictural Method Statement submitted on 27.02.09)
Ward: / P160

It was noted that with regard to the outstanding Application, (29990/014), a signed copy of the Section 106 had now been received.

It was also reported that the Applicant was now prepared to revoke Application Number 6861/020 that had related to winter storage of caravans.

Ward Councillor Mrs Long expressed concern that the timber lodge caravans had been deemed to have fallen into the definition of a ‘Caravan’ under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, when the photographs and description of such a unit suggested a more permanent structure. She also stated that she was having great difficulty forming an opinion over this Application as, on one hand, she had identified a need to protect the Green Belt within which the Application lay, but also recognised the opportunity that would be afforded to Holidaymakers who did not have access to a touring caravan to stay in the area. She also suggested imposing an additional Condition that each structure should be adequately maintained for ten years.

In summary, the Committee was concerned that the Proposal would: -

·  Potentially lead to near-permanent residency by the same person/family for eleven months of the year;

·  Set an unwelcome precedent in terms of permitting new occupation within the Greenbelt;

·  Deprive Holidaymakers using touring caravans of the opportunity to stay within Poole overnight, then travel to France by cross-Channel Ferry from Poole the next day.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused, contrary to the Officer Recommendation, on the sole ground that the Proposal would result in the loss of provision for touring caravans, which was seen as an important part of Borough of Poole’s tourism offer and therefore harmful to the tourism economy of the Borough (and the surrounding area).

Voting 6 For, 0 Against, 3 Abstentions

(Cllr Allen requested that his Vote for Refusal of the Application be recorded).

______

Item No: / 2
Case Officer: / Kevin Chilvers
Site: / Land to the north of Kinson Pottery Estate, Ringwood Road, Poole Dorset.
Application No: / APP/09/00039/F
Date Received: / 5 February, 2009
Agent: / Ellis & Partners
Applicant: / Regal Rose Ltd
Development: / Variation of condition no. 8, of planning permission 08/39651/001 to erect single-storey premises for use as a Drive-Thru Subway cafe with associated parking & landscaping, to allow for A1(Retail) and A2 (Office) use.
Ward: / J100 Newtown

It was noted that the reference in the Case Officer’s Report to 500 Square metres related to Local Plan Policy R4 and that the net floorspace of the approved building was approximately 105m2. It was also clarified that the site did not lie within a Local Centre and that the retail use of the site needed to be considered against Policy S5 that permitted small scale retail developments of less than 200m2 net retail floorspace.

Ward Councillor Wilson suggested that approval of the Proposal might lead to the creation of new jobs for local people.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted.

Voting 8 For, 1 Against 0 Abstentions

Item No: / 3
Case Officer: / Darryl Howells
Site: / 1 Shore Road, Poole BH13 7PQ
Application No: / APP/09/00158/F
Date Received: / 25 February, 2009
Agent: / Mr Robinson
Applicant: / Mr Laing
Development: / Demolish existing dwelling & erect a block of 6 apartments with basement garage, bin store & associated vehicular access (revised scheme) as amended plans received 30th April 2009.

It was noted that the Officer’s Recommendation was now for Approval, following the receipt earlier in the day, (14/05/09), of verification from the Council’s Housing and Community Services that the Scheme could not support any affordable housing provision and, as such, complied with Policy PCS6 of the Core Strategy.

It was also reported that two additional representations had been received that had objected to the proposed development on the grounds of: -

·  The harm that would be caused to the neighbouring Conservation Area and Locally Listed Building;

·  Increased density;

·  The site falling within Flood Zone 2 and 3;

·  The Applicant’s Computer Generated Images being incorrect and giving a false appearance of the Scheme and its relationship to neighbouring properties.

Mrs Loader, Objector, highlighted her concerns, in respect of: -

·  The failure of the Proposal to overcome previous reasons for Refusal, particularly in respect of Policy BE1;

·  The inappropriate scale, layout and design of the Proposal in such a prominent location;

·  Loss of light to her adjacent property. In particular, she displayed a computer generated image that depicted the view onto the Proposal from one of her top floor windows. It appeared to illustrate that a curved, light coloured factory type wall would completely block out her view from that window;

·  The harm that would be caused to her Locally Listed property and the adjacent Conservation Area;

·  The conclusion of the Judicial Review of March 2009 that granting planning permission for an almost identical Scheme relating to 1,2 and 3 Alington Close and 2a and 2b Shore Road had been valid. She reminded the Committee that this Judgement had been based on a legal technicality, not the merits of the Planning Application itself.

Mr Robinson, Architect, stated that the Proposal fully complied with national and local Planning Guidance and questioned whether the computer generated images provided by Mrs Loader had been accurate, in respect of the roof line of the proposed Development in relation to Mrs Loader’s property.

In respect of the latter point, the Case Officer advised the Committee that, in his opinion, Mrs Loader’s computer generated images had over-estimated the height of the roof of the Proposal in the region of half a storey.

Ward Councillor Mrs Dion stated that she was concerned that the Scheme contravened PCS23, relating to local distinctiveness, in terms of it detracting from the character of the adjacent Evening Hill Area and Locally Listed Building. In addition, she suggested that the Proposal might contravene the Core Strategy, which had specifically mentioned Luscombe Valley in terms of protection of view-points.

In summary, the Committee was concerned that: -

·  The site was bounded on two sides by the Evening Hill Conservation Area and that no. 18 Alington Road that lay to the west of the Application site was a Locally Listed Building;

·  The Proposal would materially harm the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, privacy and outlook and that setting the building back into the site by 3.3 metres and reducing the length by a further 1 metre would make little difference;

·  Although proposed materials included pre-oxidised copper that was expected to turn brown to blend in with its surroundings, the rear of the property was to be rendered in white and as such, would only blend in with the skyline;

·  A transition in design was required, in terms of developing a revised contemporary design that complemented the features of the adjacent Edwardian Local Listed building.