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

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

Informative Notes

Voting:For - Unanimous

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

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: