Minutes - Planning Committee - 10 February 2011

BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 10 FEBRUARY 2011

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

10 FEBRUARY 2011

The Meeting commenced at 2:00pm and concluded at 3:52pm

Present:

Councillor Mrs Stribley (Chairman)

Councillor Mrs Butt (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Allen, Eades, Mrs Haines (substituting for Councillor Burden), Trent, Wilkins, Wilson and Woodcock

Others in attendance:

Councillor Collier

Members of the public present: 8 approximately

PC77.11APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Burden.

PC78.11MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 20 January 2011, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

PC79.11DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

All Members declared a personal interest in Plans List Item No. 1, 74 Kings Avenue, Poole, No.2, 3, Glenair road, Poole, No.3, Plot 3, 1A and 3 Chaddesley Glen, Poole, due to the proximity of the Application sites to Councillors’ homes.

All Members declared a personal interest in Plans List Item No.4, 11 Arley Road, Poole, due to the Applicant being an employee of Planning and Regeneration Services.

Councillor Mrs Stribley declared a prejudicial interest in Plans List Item No.1, 74 Kings Avenue, Poole, due to the proximity of the Application site to her home. Councillor Mrs Stribley informed Members that she would withdraw from the Meeting for this item.

All Members declared a personal interest in Plans List Item No.4, 11 Arley Road, Poole, having received written and verbal representations.

PC80.11SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION

No other business was discussed.

PC81.1136 WIMBORNE ROAD – DEED OF VARIATION MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 106 AND SECTION 106A OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 23RD JUNE 2010

Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report, detailing a written request from the Applicant, Cresta Homes PLC to defer the commencement of the development payment by 10 weeks, until the third week in March 2011 or when the brickwork of the development was above ground level.

The Senior Planning Officer provided Members with the background to the request. Following a question from a Member, the Senior Planning Officer informed the Meeting that the remaining trigger points of the Section 106 Agreement remained unaltered.

The Meeting noted that the Applicant would be responsible for all reasonable costs in producing the Deed of Variation.

RESOLVED to support the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services to agree the variation of the Section 106 Agreement on the basis of the changes set out in the Report.

Voting – Unanimous

PC82.11CONFIRMATION OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

The Information Only Report was noted.

PC83.11PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 10 FEBRUARY 2011

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Note: Councillor Mrs Stribley withdrew from the Meeting. Councillor Mrs Butt, Vice-Chairman, in the Chair.

The Application was brought before the Committee because the Application Site was close to a Councillor’s home.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ site visit, commencing at 12:27pm and closing at 12:37pm. The following Members attended the site visit:Councillors Mrs Butt, Eades, Trent, Wilkins and Woodcock.

Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, provided Members with a site description and referred to the site plans as appended to the Report and presented photographs of the site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, the additional representation from the Head of Transportation Services and a revised condition No.9.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to Architect’s drawings, highlighting the various elevations of the proposed detached dwellings.

The Presentation continued by summarising representations, planning guidance and planning judgement.

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed development would provide two detached family sized houses in an existing residential area, which was within reasonable walking distance of local shops, public transport links and had good access to public open space. The design of the properties would positively contribute to the character and appearance of the street scene and would not adversely affect neighbouring residential amenities. The proposals would accord with adopted planning policies and secure adequate mitigation against the effects of additional residential development in an urban area.

A Member stated that when reading the papers, the proposed development appeared acceptable, however, following the Members’ site visit, he felt that the proposal was cramped, as the plot was not big enough to sustain two properties.

Members agreed with the comments regarding the size of the plot and felt that the proposal represented overdevelopment and would harm the character of the area and would be in conflict with PCS 5 and 23 of the Poole Core Strategy.

On being put to the vote, the Officer’s recommendation to approve the Application was not carried.

Voting:For – 3Against – 4 Abstentions – 1

Councillors Allen and Eades voted against the recommendation.

RESOLVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to delegate to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services to refuse the Application. Reasons for refusal to reflect Members’ concerns of overdevelopment, the cramped and contrived nature of the resultant plots, and harm to the predominant character of the area.

Voting:For – 5Abstentions – 3

Councillors Allen and Eades voted for the Resolution.

Note: Councillor Mrs Stribley returned to the Meeting and took the Chair.

______

The Application was brought before the Committee due to the site being in close proximity to a Councillor’s home.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ site visit, commencing at 12:10pm and closing at 12:20pm. The following Members attended the site visit: Councillors Mrs Butt, Eades, Mrs Stribley, Trent, Wilkins and Woodcock.

Richard Genge, Planning and Regeneration Manager, provided Members with a site description and referred to the site plan as appended to the Report plus Architect’s drawings of the proposed conversion.

The Presentation continued by summarising the relevant planning history, representations and planning judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning and Regeneration Manager stated that the proposal responded to its local context and created and reinforced local distinctiveness and safeguarded the amenities of existing and proposed occupiers.

A Member stated that the proposal represented development by stealth and that the size of the plot was incredibly small, with no amenity space.

A Member agreed with the comments regarding the size of the plot and stated that the proposals were in conflict with PCS 5 and 23 of the Poole Core Strategy.

A Member stated that “a garage was still a garage” and should not be converted into living accommodation as it was out of keeping with the area and offered little or no amenity space.

Ward Councillor Mrs Stribley stated that she had strong reservations regarding the proposal due to its lack of amenity space and due to the fact that it was out of context and character with the area.

On a proposition by Councillor Mrs Butt and seconded by Councillor Eades, it was

RESOLVED, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, to delegate to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services to refuse the Application. Reasons for refusal to reflect Members’ concerns of overdevelopment, the contrived and cramped nature of the resultant plot, the harm to the predominant character of the area and harm to adjacent tree(s).

Voting:Unanimous

______

The Application was brought before the Committee due to the proximity of the Application site to a Councillor’s home.

Eleanor Godesar, Planning Officer, provided Members with a site description and referred to site plans, Architectural drawings and photographs of the site.

The Presentation continued by summarising the relevant planning history, consultations, planning considerations and planning judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed garage and associated stairs, by virtue of its scale, width and position, would introduce an incongruous built form and result in the loss of opportunity to provide landscaping, particularly along the plot boundaries, which would cause material harm to the character and appearance of Chaddesley Glen.

Mr Scott, Wyatt Homes, expressed his views, including:

• Application was on behalf of the purchaser, who required additional garage space for his car collection.
• Proposed garage was for the middle plot with no impact on existing neighbours.
• Minimal impact on the street scene.
• Garage would be under the garden.
• Additional landscaping could be secured by condition.
• Drive area would not be visible by anyone other than home owner.
• Garage would have a green roof.
• Requested that Members approve the Application.

Ward Councillor Mrs Haines stated that she agreed with the conclusion of the Case Officer and added that the proposal represented a “step too far”.

A Member stated that he had similar concerns but added that the access should have been taken away when the original application was considered. He added that, on balance, as the garage would be mainly underground, he had no problem with the Application.

A Member stated that he had sympathy with the Applicant but could also understand the Officer’s reasons for refusal and that at this point, he was still undecided.

In summing up, Mr Scott, Wyatt Homes, expressed his views, including:

• Garage would be underground
• Amenity space would be unaffected
• Landscaping could be added to the scheme.

RESOLVED that the Application be Refused for the following reasons:

Reasons

Voting: For – 6 Against – 2 Abstentions – 1

Councillor Allen voted against the Resolution.

Councillor Eades voted for the Resolution.

______

The Application was brought before the Committee due to the Applicant being an employee of Planning and Regeneration Services and at the request of Councillor Mrs Stribley due to concerns of local residents.

Emma MacWilliam, Planning Assistant, provided Members with a site description and referred to the site plans as appended to the Report and presented photographs of the site and surrounding area.

The Planning Assistant referred to Architect’s drawings detailing the various elevations of the proposed extension. In addition, the Applicant had recently produced a set of shading diagrams and these had been circulated to all Members of the Planning Committee prior to the Meeting.

The Presentation continued by summarising representations, policy guidance and planning judgement.

In summing up, the Planning Assistant stated that the Application complied with relevant planning policy and would cause no harmful visual impact from the street scene and would compliment and enhance the character of the area. Neighbouring amenity would be preserved and car parking provision was sufficient.

Mr Bonniface, Objector, expressed his views, including:

• Thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak
• Not objecting to the principle of an extension, only its scale
• Similar proposals were put forward in 2001, only to be withdrawn
• The proposal almost doubled the floor area
• Main objection was the impact the proposal would have on the loss of light to his property
• Conservatory, at rear of his property, would also be affected by loss of light
• There would be material harm and a loss of his amenity
• Loss of light to all areas, especially to the back bedroom and the ground floor kitchen

Ward Councillor Collier expressed his views, including:

• No light calculations had been included in the Case Officer’s Report
• Had carried out his own light analysis and could demonstrate that the proposals would reduce light in the kitchen by 100%, with a severe impact to all rear windows, the conservatory and the garden.
• If the kitchen had solid doors the impact would be even worse
• Neighbouring property’s stairwell also relied on background light, and this would be lost.
• Expressed concern over environmental impact, carbon footprint etc.

A Member stated that he felt the proposed extension enhanced the street scene, however, he had concerns regarding the loss of light to the neighbouring property.

A Member asked Officers whether they had the chance to verify the light analysis undertaken by the Applicant? The Chairman stated that she would take other comments from Members before referring the question to Officers.

A Member stated that he agreed with previous comments regarding the street scene and loss of light but on balance was in favour of granting permission.

A Member stated that he was “puzzled” with the debate regarding loss of light, as it was clearly apparent, due to the geographic location of the properties concerned, that there would be no loss of light to the neighbouring house.

In response to the question regarding the validity of the Applicant’s submitted report on the loss of light, the Planning and Regeneration Manager stated that whist the light analysis was not required for the Application, the Applicant had chosen to undertake such an analysis. He added that it was clear, taking into account the orientation of the buildings, that there would be no material harm to the neighbouring property due to the loss of light. He continued by clarifying the difference between the loss of light and the effect the proposed extension would have in terms of dominance.

On a proposition by Councillor Wilkins and seconded by Councillor Woodcock, it was proposed to defer the decision on the Application pending a site visit. On being put to the vote, the amendment was not carried.

Voting:For – 2Against – 4 Abstentions – 3

Councillors Allen and Eades voted against the Proposal.

Ward Councillor Collier sought to make further representations regarding the validity of the Applicant’s light survey, however, the Chairman informed the Ward Member that he had no right to sum up or make further representations.

In summing up, Mr Bonniface expressed his views, including:

• It would have been courteous for the Applicant to have supplied him with an advanced copy of the light calculations
• He was never consulted about the proposals in the first place
• His wife was disabled and was restricted to the bedroom and would be adversely affected by the proposals.

RESOLVEDthat the application be Granted with Conditions subject to the following:

Conditions

Informative Notes

Voting:For – 4Against – 3 Abstentions – 2