Borough of Poole. Planning Committee. List of Planning Applications

Transcription

1 Borough of Poole Planning Committee List of Planning Applications 23 April,

2 BOROUGH OF POOLE Planning Committee DATE: 23 April 2015 at NOTES: 1. Items may be taken out of order and therefore no certain advice can be provided about the time at which any item may be considered. 2. Applications can be determined in any manner notwithstanding the recommendation being made. 3. Councillors who are not members of the Planning Committee but who wish to attend to make comments on any application on this list or accompanying agenda are required to give notice by informing the chairman or Head of Planning and Regeneration Services before the meeting. 4. Councillors who are interested in the detail of any matter to be considered should consult the files with the relevant officers to avoid queries at the meeting. 5. Any members of the public wishing to make late additional representations should do so in writing or by contacting their Ward Councillors prior to the meeting. 6. Letters of representation referred to in these reports together with any other background papers may be inspected at any time prior to the Meeting and these papers will be available at the Meeting. 7. For the purposes of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, unless otherwise stated against a particular report, background papers in accordance with section 100D will always include the case officer s written report and any letters or memoranda of representation received (including correspondence from all internal Borough Council Service Units). 8. Councillors are advised that if they wish to refer to specific drawings/plans which are not part of these papers to contact the relevant case officer at least 24 hours before the meeting to ensure these can be made available. 9. Members are advised that, in order to reduce the size of the agenda, where conditions are marked on the plans list as Standard these will no longer be reported in full. The full wording of the condition can be found either in hard copy in the Members rooms, or via the following link on the Loop 2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Planning Committee 23 April 2015 at Not before 13:00 01 Land Adjacent 92 Dorchester Road, Poole, BH15 APP/15/00030/F 4 3SB Banks Road, Poole, BH13 7PW APP/14/01640/F The Swan Inn, Old Orchard, Poole, BH15 1SD APP/15/00258/C Denham Close, Poole, BH17 9HL APP/15/00242/F 29 Not before 14: Kellaway Road, Poole, BH17 8PD APP/15/00171/F 33 3

4 ITEM NO 01 APPLICATION NO. APP/15/00030/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS Land Adjacent 92 Dorchester Road, Poole, BH15 3SB PROPOSALS Erect four detached houses on land adjacent to 92 Dorchester Road REGISTERED 15 January, 2015 APPLICANT Tickle Back Enterprises Ltd AGENT Tigers Eye Architecture WARD Oakdale CASE OFFICER Steve Llewellyn INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Mrs. Walton because of residents' concerns about 'over-development' and the proposals being 'out of character'. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Erect four detached houses to be accessed from Dorchester Road and Dorchester Gardens on land adjacent to No.92 Dorchester Road (revised scheme). MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to: Impact on Street Scene and the Character of the Area Impact on Residential Amenity Highway Issues Impact on Protected Trees Sustainability Issues CIL Compliance SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is a large plot that is situated between Dorchester Road and Dorchester Gardens with a boundary to both road frontages. The site has a dog-legged shape and tapers with a narrower frontage to Dorchester Road and wider frontage to Dorchester Gardens. At present, the site is predominantly grassed with the exception of a small area of compacted hard core that has been laid adjacent to the central section of the frontage to Dorchester Gardens. The site was formerly used as residential curtilage to No.92 Dorchester Road, a two-storey detached dwelling that is located to the east of the site and which is accessed from Dorchester 4

5 Road. The site, however, has been severed from this property with a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence erected to the boundary. Site hoardings have also been erected to the boundary with Dorchester Road, while there is an approximately 2 metre high close boarded fence to the site frontage with Dorchester Gardens to either side of an open central section to this boundary that provides access into the site. To the west, the site adjoins the side boundary with No.90 Dorchester Road that is also a detached two-storey dwelling. The eastern (side) elevation of this property is located almost immediately adjacent to the boundary of the site, whilst to the front of this property the boundary comprises an approximately 1.8 metre high close boarded fence and to the rear it is demarcated by a hedgerow. At the southern end of the western boundary, the site adjoins the curtilage of No.8 Dorchester Gardens and is separated from it by a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. The other properties in Dorchester Road within the immediate vicinity of the site largely comprise of two-storey, detached dwellings but there are also some examples of single storey and chalet style bungalows evident. Dorchester Gardens is characterised by two storey houses to the east and primarily bungalows to the west of the site. On the opposite side of the frontage of the site to Dorchester Gardens is an area of public open space. Immediately to the front of the site, within the public footpath to Dorchester Road, is a large mature Oak tree that is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order and of considerable prominence and amenity value. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY March 2012 Outline application to erect four detached dwellings with integrated garages. Refused (APP/12/00010/P) and subsequently dismissed at appeal. This application was originally refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposal by virtue of a combination of the layout of the development, resulting plot sizes, siting, orientation of the buildings and the relationship of plots 1 and 2 to Dorchester Road whereby they turn their backs on this streetscene would result in a form of development which does not respect the character and appearance of the streetscene and surrounding area and as such is contrary to Policies PCS23, PCS05 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted The proposal would by virtue of its layout, relationship between the proposed dwellings on site, size of gardens, proximity of the driveway to plots 1 and 2 with the neighbour at 90 Dorchester Road and with Plots 3 and 4 and the proximity of the protected Oak tree to Plot 1 would result in harm to the amenities of future occupiers of the site and the neighbour at No.90 which would be contrary to Policy PCS05 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted The proposed dwelling on plot one would be within close proximity to a protected Oak tree outside of the site which is of high amenity value. The proposal by virtue of its relationship to this tree is likely to put future pressure on it to be pruned or felled which would be detrimental to the tree and character of the streetscene. In addition the majority of the rear garden area to the dwelling on plot 1 would be beneath the canopy of this protected tree which would impact upon the reasonable enjoyment of future occupants and further add to this pressure which would be compounded further through the impact of falling debris, detritus and anxiety issues associated with safety and dominance. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy NE28 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration Adopted 2004 (as amended by Secretary of State Direction September 2007) and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted In addition, the application was also refused on the grounds that it failed to provide appropriate mitigation to address the transportation impact generated by the proposed development and that it failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause harm to the Dorset 5

6 Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC). In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector concluded that the resultant plot sizes being of a shallower depth to others in the vicinity would lead to an uncharacteristically cramped form of development, whilst the dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 backing onto Dorchester Road would be out of keeping in the street scene and would not respect the prevailing building line with the dwelling on Plot 2 being sited uncharacteristically close to the road. It was also concluded that the resultant tree-building relationship between the dwelling on Plot 1 and the Oak tree to the front of the site on Dorchester Road would lead to future pressure to fell or prune the tree that could harm its amenity value that would be detrimental to the area s character and appearance. The Inspector also determined that the proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions for the future occupants of the proposed dwellings with particular reference to privacy and the reduced usability of the garden to Plot 1 given its relationship to the Oak tree. In relation to the issues of the impact of the proposed development on the Dorset heathlands and transport infrastructure, the Inspector concluded that in the absence of a completed obligation which would ensure mitigation, in the form of financial contributions, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm. January 2014 Erect four detached houses. Refused (APP/13/01441/F). This application was refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development by virtue of the resulting plots sizes of plots 1, 2 and 3 would result in a cramped form of development failing to assemble sufficient land to preserve or enhance the character of the area. Overall the proposal would therefore not respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would be contrary to Policy PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted The proposal by virtue of the size of the rear gardens as proposed and close proximity of dwellings within proposed plots 2, 3 and 4 and their proximity and relationship to 92 Dorchester Road would result in harmful overlooking of amenity space to plots 2, 3 and 4 and some overlooking of habitable rooms resulting in a harmful loss of privacy to future occupiers. In addition the back to back relationship between plot 1 and the neighbour at 90 Dorchester Road would also result in a poor relationship and loss of privacy to this neighbour. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy DM01 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted The proposals by virtue of the unacceptably short garage to plot 1, inadequate length to the driveway to plot 3 and unacceptable turning to plot 4 resulting in vehicles being likely to have to reverse onto a Distributor Route, would result in inadequate parking and turning facilities on site harmful to Highway safety and contrary to the Councils SPD1 - Parking & Highway Layout in Development 2011 and DM07 and DM08 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD Adopted June Erect three detached houses on land adjacent to No.92 Dorchester Road. Withdrawn (APP/14/00482/F). June 2014 Erect three detached houses on land adjacent to No.92 Dorchester Road. Withdrawn (APP/14/00544/F). September 2014 Erect four detached houses to be accessed from Dorchester Road and Dorchester Gardens. Refused (APP/14/00922/F). This application was refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development would by virtue of the proximity of plots 1 and 2 and their design would not respect the character and appearance of the streetscene. Furthermore the resultant 6

7 plot sizes of plots 3 and 4 and their overall design would result in an uncharacteristically cramped and dominant appearance within the streetscene harmful to its character and appearance. Overall, the scheme would result in a development which does not assemble sufficient land to accommodate a type, scale, density and layout of development which preserves or enhances the character of the area nor does it respect the character and appearance of the streetscene. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted The proposals would by virtue of the distance between Plots 2 and 4 and relationship of 92 Dorchester Road to the rear gardens of plots 2 and 4 result in harm to the privacy and amenities of future occupiers of plots 2 and 4. Furthermore the first floor bedroom window in the east elevation of plot 4 would result in overlooking of the rear garden and towards the dwelling at 92 Dorchester Road harmful to their privacy and amenities. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy PCS05 of the Poole Core Strategy adopted 2009, and DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted November Erect four detached houses to be accessed from Dorchester Road and Dorchester Gardens (revised scheme). Withdrawn (APP/14/01248/F). PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE Following the withdrawal of the previous application (APP/14/01248/F), informal advice has been provided in relation to the proposed development of 4 dwellings on the site. Comments and suggestions were provided in relation to the scale and design of the proposed dwellings and the need to reduce their bulk and massing to provide a more spacious development, particularly in relation to Dorchester Gardens; their layout and siting within the plots, together with the means of design of the properties, to ensure that the scheme provides an acceptable relationship between the proposed dwellings themselves and to the neighbouring properties, particularly given the more limited back to back separation distances. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None. CONSULTATIONS Head of Transportation Services: No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the provision of parking and turning facilities within the site and pedestrian visibility splays to be provided prior to the occupation of the dwellings. REPRESENTATIONS 10 letters of representation have been received raising concerns/objections to the proposed development on the following grounds: Character of the Area The proposal represents an uncharacteristically cramped form of development and would set a precedent for future development of the remaining site. The houses will be too small. The houses will be out of keeping with the other properties in the immediate area, particularly those fronting Dorchester Gardens that will dominate the street scene of Dorchester Gardens and should be bungalows to be in keeping with the adjacent properties. The proposed dwellings on Dorchester Road are set forward of the common building which is a key feature, as are the properties on Dorchester Gardens. This is out of character with other 7

8 properties and is therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the locality. The side extension to Plot 1 and the garage to Plot 2 would not respect the characteristics of the built form on Dorchester Road and would appear prominent and out of keeping with the general character and appearance of the street scene. A comprehensive development of the application site and the adjacent site at No.92 Dorchester Road would be above the threshold for affordable housing provision but separately they are not which is unacceptable. Amenity Issues The proposed dwellings, being two-storey, would have an unacceptable overbearing visual impact on the neighbouring properties, particularly Plot 3. The detached garage on Plot 2 would result in a loss of light and have an overbearing presence to No.92 Dorchester Road. The detached garage on Plot 2 reduces the size of the rear garden and there is an inadequate level of amenity space for this plot, whilst the buildings extend further back into the site on Plots 3 and 4 with the garden sizes for each plot below an acceptable level of amenity space that is characteristic of the area. The first floor window in the west elevation of the dwelling on Plot 2 will result in a loss of privacy by reason of overlooking of No.92 Dorchester Road. The existing dwelling at No.92 Dorchester Road will overlook the gardens of the proposed development. The main entrance to the dwellings on Plots 3 and 4 is situated in the kitchen at the front of the house which does not represent an acceptable living environment. Highway and Parking Issues The layout does not allow a vehicle visiting the dwelling on Plot 1 to enter and exit the site in a forward gear which would result in an adverse impact on highway safety. The proposal will result in increased traffic movements. Other Issues The layout already indicates some excavation into the root protection area of the protected Oak tree and the provision of adequate on-site turning provision will require further excavation into this area that would adversely affect this tree. There is likely to be future pressure to reduce the size of the protected Oak tree which would be harmful to the street scene. Is the tree survey correct in relation to the protected Oak tree on Dorchester Road? The boundary between the application site and No.90 Dorchester Road is inaccurately shown and therefore the application site includes land which is not within the ownership of the applicant. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012) LOCAL CONTEXT The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) PCS05 PCS08 Broad Locations for Residential Development Lifetime Homes 8

9 PCS15 PCS23 PCS28 PCS31 PCS32 PCS35 PCS37 Access and Movement Local Distinctiveness Dorset Heaths International Designations Sustainable Energy - General Sustainable Homes Energy and Resources Statements The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012) Development Management Policies DM1 DM7 DM8 Design Accessibility and Safety Demand Management Delivering Poole s Infrastructure DPD (Adopted April 2012) IN1 IN2 Poole s Infrastructure Delivery Framework Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document Parking and Highway Layout in Development (Adopted July 2011) The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework (Adopted September 2012) PLANNING JUDGEMENT Impact on Street Scene and the Character of the Area This current application is a revised scheme to a number of previously refused and withdrawn schemes which were for 3 and 4 dwellings on the site. This current proposal seeks permission for the erection of 4 dwellings, two dwellings fronting Dorchester Road and two dwellings fronting Dorchester Gardens. With regards to the proposed dwellings on Plot 1 and 2, in determining the previously refused application (APP/14/00922/F), it was concluded that the design of the proposed dwellings on these plots would not be reflective of the area, particularly by virtue of the flat roof, two-storey elements to the side of the properties which had a more contemporary design and appearance. It was also determined that the proposed gap of 1.2 metres between the two properties would not reflect the general pattern of development on this side of Dorchester Road and that as a result of the combination of these factors the proposed dwellings would not sit comfortably on or preserve the street scene. The current proposals seek to address these concerns. The proposed dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 that would front Dorchester Road, would be of two-storey height but have now been designed to reflect a more traditional design and appearance which is achieved through the proportions of the window openings, the use of a hipped rather than gabled end to the front elevation and through the use of the proposed materials to the external finish. Whilst the proposal still retains a two-storey element to the side of the dwelling on Plot 1 it would also be of a fairly traditional design and appearance with a pitched roof element above it rather than a full flat roof form. As a result, it is considered that these dwellings would be of a design and massing which is generally characteristic of the street scene. It is acknowledged that the current proposal, like the previously refused scheme, would only provide 9

10 a gap of approximately 1.3 metres between the proposed dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 which it was considered did not reflect the general pattern of development to this side of the road. However, the two-storey element to the side of the dwelling on Plot 1 would be set back by 2 metres from the main forward building line of this dwelling as a subservient element and almost 4 metres back from the forward building line of the dwelling on Plot 2. As a result, it is considered that when these dwellings are approached in either direction along Dorchester Road the side addition would not be readily visible and the actual gap between the properties would only be perceived when viewed from almost directly in front of the dwellings. It is therefore considered that this issue alone would not cause sufficient harm to the character and appearance of the street scene of Dorchester Road to warrant refusal. In relation to the previously refused application, it was accepted that the dwellings fronting Dorchester Road would be of a footprint and siting that would respect the building line of properties on this side of the road. Despite objections to the current proposal on the grounds that the proposed dwelling would be set forward of the common building line, it is evident that the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 would be on the same footprint and therefore there is no reason to now reach a different conclusion. Whilst it is acknowledged that the dwelling on Plot 2 would be set 1 metre further forward than the earlier scheme (APP/14/00922/F), given the shape of the road it would still be set back into the site by the same distance as the dwelling on Plot 1 and the same or greater distance than those dwellings that front Dorchester Road to the west of the site. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposed dwellings would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene. The previous scheme (APP/14/00922/F) was also refused on the grounds that the dwellings on Plots 3 and 4 would be of a design and scale which would result in them appearing uncharacteristically dominant in comparison to the single storey dwellings to the west, particularly by virtue of the roof depth and gable feature which accentuate the buildings height, and therefore harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene of Dorchester Gardens. The current proposal includes dwellings that would effectively be 1½ storeys in height with semi-dormer windows to serve the accommodation at the first floor level. Whilst the overall eaves and ridge heights of these dwellings would be similar to those of the previously refused scheme, it is evident that they would be of a substantially reduced width (approximately 6.7 metres wide rather than 9.5 metres) and would not include the gable projection. As a result, it is considered that they would present considerably less bulk and massing to the street scene of Dorchester Gardens, whilst substantially larger gaps would be provided between the two properties and to the boundaries of the site thereby providing a greater degree of spaciousness. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would not appear unduly dominant to the street scene of Dorchester Gardens but would serve to provide a transition between the bulk and massing of the two-storey dwellings in Dorchester Gardens to the east and the single storey bungalows to the west of the site. The previous proposals (APP/14/00922/F) were judged to fail to preserve or enhance the existing character of the area on the grounds that the resultant sizes of Plots 3 and 4 that would be uncharacteristically shallow, in conjunction with the overall design of the dwellings, would result in a cramped development that fails to assemble sufficient land to accommodate a type, scale, density and layout of development which preserves or enhances the character of the area and does not respect the character and appearance of the street scene. It is acknowledged that the depth of Plots 3 and 4 would be of no greater depth than those of the previously refused scheme (APP/14/00922/F), being between approximately metres, and that they would therefore be inconsistent with the existing pattern and grain of development in the area. However, the proposed plots would be no shallower than some of the other plots towards the south eastern end of Dorchester Gardens, whilst they would be of considerably greater overall width than most of the other plots in the surrounding vicinity and as such would not be of a dissimilar overall site area. Importantly, the overall bulk and massing of the proposed dwellings on these plots would be significantly reduced in comparison to the previous scheme and would provide a more spacious development. As such, it is considered that the current proposal addresses the previous concerns 10

11 and would not appear uncharacteristically cramped and dominant to the street scene of Dorchester Gardens. Impact on Residential Amenity In relation to No.90 Dorchester Road, the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 would not extend any further into the site than this neighbouring property. Whilst the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling includes a first floor bedroom window that would allow some views overlooking the neighbouring garden this would be no more harmful than the degree of mutual overlooking that already exists between properties in the surrounding vicinity. Given the blank façade to the side elevation of the front section of No.90 Dorchester Road that is located in close proximity to the boundary, the proposed dwelling would not appear overbearing or lead to any loss of light/overshadowing. In addition, the windows to the side elevation of the proposed dwelling would either face onto this blank façade or could reasonably be obscure glazed as they would serve secondary accommodation so that no overlooking would occur. The dwelling on Plot 3 would have a single semi-dormer window at the first floor level to the rear elevation that would serve a bathroom and en-suite and could therefore be obscure glazed and as such would not result in overlooking of No.90 Dorchester Road, whilst it would be sufficiently distanced so as not to cause any harm to the amenities of the occupants of this neighbouring property. The dwelling on Plot 3 would also border the front boundary to the properties at Nos.8 and 10 Dorchester Gardens. The proposed dwelling, however, would be sited almost 15 metres from the front of these properties at its closest point and would be set at an angle to them, whilst the roof pitch would also be sloping away from the boundary. As such, it is not considered that it would harm the amenities of the occupants of these properties. Furthermore, there would be no windows in the side elevation of the dwelling facing these neighbouring properties above ground floor level so no overlooking would occur. In relation to No.92 Dorchester Road, the proposed dwelling on Plot 2 would have a bedroom window at the first floor level in the rear elevation but given that it would be angled away from this neighbouring property any potential overlooking would be at an oblique angle of view and would not be materially harmful. Despite an objection to the proposal on the grounds that the first floor window in the side (west) elevation of the dwelling on Plot 2 would result in a loss of privacy by reason of overlooking, given that it would serve a landing/hallway area it could be conditioned to be obscure glazed and therefore would not give rise to a material loss of privacy. The current proposal also includes a detached garage that would be set back to the rear of the dwelling on Plot 2 and adjacent to the boundary with No.92 Dorchester Road in order to limit any potential overlooking of this proposed plot from the first floor windows in the side elevation of this neighbouring dwelling. However, this has generated an objection to the proposal on the basis that it would result in a loss of light and have an overbearing presence to No.92. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed garage would alter the outlook from No.92, given that its eaves level would only stand approximately 0.5 metres above the height of the existing boundary fence and the roof would slope away to an overall height of approximately 3.1 metres, it is not considered that it would have such an overbearing presence or give rise to levels of overshadowing/loss of light to warrant refusal, particularly given the orientation between the application site and No.92. The relationship between the dwelling on Plot 4 and the neighbouring property at No.92 Dorchester Road would not cause any harm to neighbouring amenity. In this regard, whilst the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling would include a single semi-dormer window at the first floor level it would be angled away from No.92 and would also serve a bathroom and en-suite, whilst there would be no windows above ground floor level in the side elevation so that no overlooking of this neighbouring property would occur. It is also considered that this dwelling would be sufficiently distanced so as not to cause any harm to the amenities of the occupants of this neighbouring property. 11

12 In terms of the privacy and amenities of the future occupants of the proposed dwellings, it is accepted that the first floor windows in the side elevation of No.92 would result in some overlooking of the private amenity areas to the rear of the dwelling on Plot 4. Although this is not an ideal relationship, given the width of this plot it is considered that the degree of overlooking would not be dissimilar to the mutual level of overlooking that occurs between properties from first floor rear bedroom windows. In addition, it is considered that the future occupants of this dwelling would be aware of this situation when purchasing the property. It is also accepted that the separation distance between the dwellings on Plots 1 and 3 and Plots 2 and 4 would be less than the 20 metre back to back separation distance that would normally be sought, particularly in relation to the latter properties. However, in this instance, the dwellings on Plots 3 and 4 have been purposely designed so that the single storey rear projection has a blank rear façade to prevent overlooking from the dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 into windows serving main habitable accommodation. The single storey projections to the rear of the dwellings on Plots 3 and 4 would also help to screen any potential views into the windows in the rear elevation of the two-storey part of the dwellings from the dwellings on Plots 1 and 2. In addition, the dwellings on Plots 3 and 4 have been purposely designed with a single window to a bathroom and en-suite that can be obscure glazed to prevent mutual overlooking between the first floor windows of the proposed dwellings. Any overlooking of the rear gardens to Plots 3 and 4 from the rear first floor bedroom windows to the dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 would be no more harmful than the degree of mutual overlooking that already exists between properties in the surrounding vicinity. As such, it is considered that the relationship between the proposed dwellings would not be unduly harmful to the amenities of the future occupants. Highway Issues The proposed development includes the formation of a shared vehicular access off Dorchester Road to serve the proposed dwellings on Plots 1 and 2, whilst a new vehicular access would be created to each of the proposed dwellings on Plots 3 and 4 from Dorchester Gardens. The dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 would both have a garage of a sufficient size to accommodate a parking space with a further space provided on the driveway. The shared driveway to these properties would also provide sufficient space for vehicles to turn within the site and exit in a forward gear. The proposal includes the provision of two tandem parking spaces on each driveway to serve the proposed dwellings on Plots 3 and 4. Whilst this arrangement would require vehicles to reverse into or out of the driveways given that Dorchester Gardens is not a classified road it is considered that this is acceptable in terms of highway safety. It is therefore considered that the proposal provides an acceptable level of parking provision that accords with the Council's parking standards. The proposal also includes adequate pedestrian visibility splays to each of the proposed vehicular accesses. As such, there is no highway objection to the proposed development. Impact on Protected Trees There is a substantial sized mature Oak tree located to the front of the site within the footpath to Dorchester Road that is protected by a Tree Preservation Order and which is of considerable prominence and amenity value to the street scene. In assessing the previous application (APP/14/00922/F) it was determined that subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Method Statement the proposed development would not harm this Oak tree. With regards to the current proposal, the proposed development would still be located outside of the 12

13 root protection area (RPA) of the Oak tree with the exception of a small area of the proposed shared driveway to Plots 1 and 2 that would be constructed using a cellular confinement system, as was the case with the previous scheme. As a result, the proposal does not give rise to any different arboricultural issues and as such there is no reason to now reach a different conclusion in respect of this issue. Sustainability Issues The Energy and Resources statement submitted as part of this application sets out how the proposed development could comply with the requirements of Policies PCS32 and PCS35 to achieve 10% of the predicted energy needs for the proposed dwellings and compliance with a minimum of Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Being new build, it would be readily possible to achieve an energy efficient and sustainable development. This can be secured by the imposition of appropriate conditions. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS A financial contribution of 1, towards the protection of Dorset Heathlands is required to satisfy the respective policies subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule that was adopted by the Council on 18 September In accordance with CIL Regulation 28(1), the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2 January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and are now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council's Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole's adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development's impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council would receive 5, ( 1, x net increase in dwellings) in each of the following six years from the completion of the dwellings, a total of 34, in Government grant under the New Homes Bonus. This application currently falls into CIL Zone C which at present has a CIL chargeable rate of 75 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The chargeable residential floorspace for this development will be calculated against this rate and indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as practicable after the day on which a planning permission first permits development. Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attached to those considerations. The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event. 13

14 BACKGROUND PAPERS None. RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted With CIL Contribution and S.106 agreement to secure: 1. A financial contribution of 1, (plus admin fee) towards mitigating the harm to the Dorset Heathlands SPA and SSSI in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands SPD, Policies PCS28, PCS36 and PCS37 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, Policy DM9 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 Conditions: 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. PL01 (Plans Listing) 3. GN030 (Sample of Materials) 4. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3) 5. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential) 6. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s)) Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the windows to the wc at ground floor and the en-suite at first floor in the west (side) elevation of the dwelling on Plot 1, the window to the hall at first floor in the east (side) elevation of the dwelling on Plot 2, and the windows to the bathroom and en-suite in the north-west (rear) elevations of the dwellings on Plots 3 and 4, hereby permitted, shall be glazed with obscure glass in a form sufficient to prevent external views and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of opening. Reason: To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). 7. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development)(windows) 8. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development) (Hard surfacing) 9. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development)(extensions) 10. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 11. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 14

15 12. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) 13. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted) 14. AA01 (Non standard Condition) No development shall commence on site until details of any screen walls and/or fences have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The screen walls and/or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted and shall be retained and maintained as such at all times thereafter. Reason: To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (adopted 2012). 15. TR010 (Arb Method Statement-Submission Required) 16. TR040 (Pre-commencement Meeting) 17. TR090 (No Pruning Works) 18. TR110 (Arboricultural Supervision) Informative Notes 1. IN13 (Kerb Crossing to be Lowered) 2. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 3. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 15

16 ITEM NO 02 APPLICATION NO. APP/14/01640/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 23 Banks Road, Poole, BH13 7PW PROPOSALS Demolition of a single dwelling house and construction of seven flats REGISTERED 7 January, 2015 APPLICANT Mr Schiel AGENT Roger Lieberg Ltd WARD Canford Cliffs CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Councillor Mrs. Haines because of concerns about impact on the amenities of neighbours. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Demolition of a single dwelling house and construction of seven flats (Revised Scheme) MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to the planning history the impact of the changes on the character and appearance of the building and the amenity of the neighbours. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is occupied by a detached 3 storey flat roof house on the South east side of Banks Road, on the 'causeway' stretch between Poole Harbour and Poole Bay. The site backs on to the beach, has vehicle access from Banks Road, with off road parking. The road is predominately residential with a mix of blocks of flats and detached houses and has been undergoing a process of renewal. The site to the north east was previously used a water sports school linked to the adjoining Sandbanks Hotel, but is now hoarded pending either the implementation of planning permission referred to below, or the determination of a further application currently being considered. There is a consistency in building heights along the causeway, but a wide variety in the style of architecture, materials and roof shapes. Buildings generally follow a consistent building line, to both Poole Bay and the Harbour, although at this point the 'causeway' widens out with existing buildings set further back from Banks Road, however the scheme implemented at Bank Road, referred to below, has continued to follow the curve of the road. 16

17 The site falls within a Tourism Zone and due to its location, is liable to flooding. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 2011: Demolish the existing house and erect a four-storey, five bedroom, single dwelling house. Approved (11/01290) 2013: Demolish the existing house; construction of four flats including one duplex flat; with ground level under-croft parking and swimming pool. Refused due to the design, size, level of plot coverage and height being over development of the site out of character with and harmful to the character and appearance of the area; harm to the amenities of the neighbours; lack of parking and manoeuvring space; and the risk of flooding and failure to meet the sequential test (13/00367) 2014: Demolish the existing house and construct a block of six flats. Approved (13/01580) Banks Road 2014: Demolish the existing 3 buildings and erect a block of 10 flats. Approved (13/01268) 2014: Demolish the existing buildings and the construct a block of 10 flats. Approved and has been implemented (14/00561) PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS The Head of Transportation has no objection subject to conditions. The Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services has no objection to the waste collection provisions. Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions and the LPA being satisfied that the Sequential Test is passed. Natural England: No objection. REPRESENTATIONS Letters of representation have been received objecting to the overbearing and overshadowing due to the overdevelopment of the site, loss of privacy and harm to the character and appearance of the area. 17

18 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT SEDTCS Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on highway infrastructure. Dorset Heathland SPD Securing contributions towards protecting SSSI Heathlands from harm. National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012) LOCAL CONTEXT Planning Obligations Recreational facilities SPG. Securing contributions towards mitigating the impact on existing facilities. Affordable Housing SPD Parking and Highway Layout in Development SPD 2011 Shoreline Character SPG The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS06 Affordable Housing PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS29 Poole Harbour Spa and Ramsar Site PCS31 Sustainable Energy - General PCS32 Sustainable Homes PCS34 Flood Risk PCS36 Joint Working PCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG3 Shoreline Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document SPD1 Parking & Highway Layout in Development Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (2012) DM1 Design DM5 Tourism and the Evening Economy DM7 Accessibility and Safety DM8 Demand Management DM9 Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity PLANNING JUDGEMENT The application proposes to erect a block of 7 flats, revising the 2014 consent for 6 flats, by increasing the size of the building. Since the 6 flat scheme was approved, consent for a revised scheme at Banks Road 18

19 has been approved and implemented. The revisions to the design of that building have in part informed the revisions to the scheme subject to this application. The revised design has increased the size of the building, extending it closer to the edge of the site on both sides and the upper floors have been increased in size to reduce the tiered appearance of the previous consent. Whilst these changes have had the effect of increasing the size of the building, it would still preserve the character and appearance of the area and streetscene and would sit comfortably alongside the neighbouring buildings. The general principle of the style of architecture and the appearance of the building remain as the approved scheme. Oriel windows would project from the sides of the building providing a view towards the water for rooms positioned centrally in the building, similar to those on the side elevation of the neighbouring building. The incorporation of solid panels or obscure glass to the appropriate aspect of the oriel window to avoid any intrusive relationship with windows in the side of the adjoining buildings. A new balcony would be added on the beach (south-east) elevation to the top floor flat. Whilst this would potentially allow views down to the balconies of the flats in the neighbouring buildings a condition was imposed on the previous application requiring screens to be erected along the sides of all the balconies. This would again be appropriate to preserve the privacy and amenities of adjacent residents. The increased size of the building would have an impact on the outlook from the windows in the side of the neighbouring block of flats at Banks Road. As with the assessment of the impact of the previous application, these windows serve secondary bedrooms and the loss of light and outlook from those rooms would not have a material impact on the overall light or amenity enjoyed by their occupants. The rear facing windows and balconies would still enjoy unrestricted views across Poole Bay and the same level of light that they currently enjoy. There would be no shared/communal accommodation on the ground floor due to a change in the design and depth of the underground car-stacking system, which now takes up the majority of the ground floor, but retains the same principle of stacking the cars in an enclosed conveyor store. This store has been increased to meet the parking requirements of the 7 flat scheme. On-site turning is provided as part of the car stacking system and the access is safe, with sufficient visibility. On site cycle storage has been provided for visitors and residents. Bin storage is appropriately located to ensure efficient collection by the Waste Collection Authority. The principle of the intensification of the residential use has been established by the previous application. All of the residential accommodation is above the predicted flood levels. Removing the ground floor shared accommodation reduces the potential risk to occupiers. Being a new build development it would be readily possible to deliver an energy efficient and sustainable development, achieving level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The plans indicate the provision of solar PV panels across the roof of the building and this could 19

20 be secured by condition. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Financial contributions of 71, and 1, towards the delivery of affordable housing and the protection of Dorset Heathlands respectively are required to satisfy the respective policies and subject to the completion of a S.106 agreement. Mitigation in respect of the impact of the proposed development on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure is provided for by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule adopted by the Council on 18th September In accordance with CIL Regulation 28 (1) the Adopted Charging Schedule which came into effect in Poole on 2 nd January 2013 confirms that all planning applications for residential dwellings are CIL liable development and now required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council s Charging Schedule. The Borough of Poole s adopted Regulation 123 List of Infrastructure confirms that the infrastructure projects required to mitigate development s impact on recreational facilities, Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour Special Protection Areas and strategic transport infrastructure will be provided for by CIL instead of (and not in addition to) Planning obligations secured through S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act The proposal therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37, DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2 and Dorset Heathlands SPD. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council will receive in each of the following six years from the dwellings completion a total of 51, in government grant under the New Homes Bonus. This application currently falls into CIL Zone A which at present has a CIL chargeable rate of 150 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The chargeable residential floorspace for this development will be calculated against this rate and indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index. The precise CIL liability in relation to this application will be confirmed in the CIL Regulation 65 Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as practicable after the day on which a planning permission first permits development. Local financial considerations are material to the decision on this application. It is a matter for the decision maker to conclude how much weight should be attach to those considerations The planning merits of the scheme stand alone, and whilst financial considerations are of obvious benefit to the Council, those considerations are not of such significance to outweigh any harm identified. The scheme should be approved in any event, or the scheme should be refused in any event. CONCLUSION The increase in size of the building, changes to the parking arrangement and number of units would not result in the scheme being detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, the shoreline or streetscene, would preserve the amenities of the neighbours and preserve highway safety. The application is therefore recommended for approval. 20