Borough of Poole. Planning Committee. List of Planning Applications

Transcription

1 Borough of Poole Planning Committee List of Planning Applications 27 April,

2 BOROUGH OF POOLE Planning Committee DATE: 27 April 2017 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 Planning and Regeneration Manager 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 27 April 2017 at Not before 13:00 01 Land rear of Ringwood Road, POOLE, APP/16/01874/F 4 BH14 0RL Lilliput Road, Poole, BH14 8JX APP/17/00057/C Marianne Road, Poole, BH12 5EF APP/17/00332/F Site at 19 Floral Farm, Canford Magna, Wimborne, BH21 3AF APP/17/00117/F 22 Not before 14: A Vale Road, Poole, BH14 9AT APP/16/01834/F Woodlake Close, Poole, BH17 9FE APP/17/00308/F Rugby Road, Poole, BH17 7HJ APP/17/00346/F 37 3

4 ITEM NO 01 APPLICATION NO. APP/16/01874/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS Land rear of Ringwood Road, POOLE, BH14 0RL PROPOSALS Erection of 7 houses with associated access and parking REGISTERED 13 January, 2017 APPLICANT DWP Housing Partnership AGENT Pure Town Planning WARD Parkstone CASE OFFICER Sarah Scannell INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr. Mrs. Stribley because of neighbours' concerns. Recommendation for Grant With CIL Contribution THE PROPOSAL Erection of 6 houses with associated access and parking. The application has been amended to reduce the number of dwellings from 7 to 6 and provide onsite turning. MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to: principle of residential development of the site; character and appearance of the area and locally listed buildings; residential amenity; highway safety and parking provision; waste collection; drainage/ flood risk renewable energy; and CIL/ healthland mitigation. SITE DESCRIPTION The application site comprises part of the rear garden of 34 Ringwood Road and the previously severed gardens of Ringwood Road. The proposal would utilise the existing access from Ringwood Road through Harry Paye Close (Phase 1) which comprises 4

5 three 2-storey blocks of 10 flats in total with 17 allocated parking spaces (including 2 spaces for 14 Ringwood Road). Blocks B and C back onto the main part of the site and contain 2 flats each with communal gardens to the rear. There are detached bin and bike stores adjacent to the parking area. The site is relatively flat and enclosed by high fencing. The surrounding development is residential in character. Properties on Ringwood Road and Linthorpe Road which back onto the site are predominantly detached, 2-storey houses. No.32 is a bungalow and nos 34 and 36 Ringwood Road are locally listed 2-storey Lady Wimborne cottages. Gaps between the surrounding properties are quite limited however glimpses of the site are possible from the adjacent streets. The site is approximately 1m higher than the Linthorpe Road gardens. There are no protected trees on or adjoining the site. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Rear of Ringwood Road 2009: Erect 16 1-bed student flats in four blocks accessed from 14 Ringwood Road (APP/09/00068/P). Refused and appeal dismissed on the grounds that: the proposed development would sit uncomfortably and disproportionately on the site unsympathetic to existing character and pattern; there would be insufficient separation between the proposed buildings themselves; to Harry Paye Close; and to adjoining properties on Ringwood Road and Linthorpe Road; the layout, including buildings, parking, footpaths and bin stores, would result in unacceptable impact on visual amenity as it would turn its back on Harry Paye Close; unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity through overbearing appearance, disturbance from position of bin stores and loss of privacy from insufficient separation distance; and unacceptable living conditions for future occupants due to unpleasant and intimidating journey from car park and likelihood that residents would take shortcuts across landscaped areas. 2010: Outline application to erect 5 Pairs of Semi-Detached 1-Bedroom Houses (10 in Total) intended for occupation by students. These were northwest facing in a linear arrangement and had eaves dormers on the front elevation facing Linthorpe Road and catslide roofs with rooflights to the rear. the proposals did not include any parking or vehicular access. (APP/10/00121/P). Non-determination appeal Dismissed on the grounds that the scheme would be cramped and out of keeping with the spacious character and appearance of the surrounding area. The distance to bins was cited as being unsatisfactory and reinforced the view that the proposals would be out of keeping. The level of parking was judged to be acceptable. Harry Paye Close 2008: Demolish existing buildings and erect 3 blocks of flats (10 total) with associated parking, detached bin & cycle stores, accessed from Ringwood Road. Approved (APP/07/38667/002/F). PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE 5

6 October 2016: Erection of 7 houses (3 x two bed and 4 x three bed) with associated access and parking (PREA/16/00147). More spacious layout and density addressed part of previous refusal reason. There was still concern about isolated communal areas of landscaping. A more linear layout, with units reoriented to face south, and with more traditional front and rear gardens would create better living conditions for future occupants. The proposed dwellings were assumed to be two-storey. This would be appropriate amid two-storey dwellings on Ringwood Road and Linthorpe Road. Given the separation from the adjacent locally listed buildings, the impact on their setting was unlikely to be an issue. There would be sufficient separation distance to neighbouring properties to avoid material overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing. Street lighting along the access would bring it more in line with a road of adoptable standard and assist with pedestrian safety The access would remove two parking spaces from the existing Harry Paye Close development and any proposal should provide two replacement parking spaces. The provision or retention of footpaths and landscaping adjoining Blocks B and C at Harry Paye Close would contribute to traffic calming and reduced vehicle speeds. Existing waste collection arrangement were unclear and would have to be addressed for any new development. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS Transportation Policy Manager: Supports the application, subject to conditions. ECPS: Object to the application. Each property would have a 180 litre black bin for refuse and a 240 litre blue bin for recycling. Harry Paye Close is unadopted highway so the collection vehicle does not access it and the communal bins that serve Harry Paye Close are moved to Ringwood Road for emptying. Because the development would be off unadopted highway there is no potential bin collection point within a suitable distance of the adopted highway. Residents would have to wheel their bins at least 80m to Ringwood Road for collection. This is unacceptable as residents would not wheel their bins this distance and bins would be left either in the road, on the footways or at a point from which they could not be collected. REPRESENTATIONS Representations have received from neighbouring residents in which the following concerns are raised: Excessive plot coverage, density, height, bulk and monolithic appearance not in keeping with surrounding development. Scheme not materially different to schemes previously rejected by the Council and Planning Inspectors. Loss of part of garden of Flat 9, Harry Paye Close. Gardens are greenfield land and 6

7 should be protected. Inadequate access and parking particularly for emergency vehicles. No turning area for a number of spaces. No cycle parking. Increase in traffic onto busy Ringwood Road would result in congestion. Disturbance from noise and air pollution due to close proximity of dwellings, access and parking spaces to neighbouring dwellings. Proximity would not comply with building regulations. Impact on neighbouring amenity by overlooking. Gardens of Linthorpe Road are approximately 1m lower than the site and separation distance would be less than 25m. Impact of additional hardsurfacing on drainage. Pressure on sewage system. Private waste collection could not be guaranteed in perpetuity. No need for small two-bed dwellings in the area. Loss of trees and shrubs during determination of previous application. Future maintenance of isolated area of greenspace. No details of renewables. Potential damage to neighbouring fences and trees. Inaccuracies in planning statement. 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. National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). LOCAL CONTEXT Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS15 Access and Movement PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS24 Design and Access Statements PCS26 Delivering Locally Distinctive, Self-Reliant Places PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS31 Sustainable Energy - General PCS32 Sustainable Homes PCS35 Energy and Resources Statements PCS37 The Role of Developer Contributions in Shaping Places 7

8 Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document DPD (April 2012) DM01 Design DM02 Heritage DM07 Accessibility and Safety DM08 Demand Management Supplementary Planning Documents Parking and Highway Layout in Development (Adopted July 2011) The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework (Adopted 2015) Heritage Assets SPD (April 2013) PLANNING JUDGEMENT Principle of residential development of the site, impact on the character and appearance of the area and the setting of locally listed buildings Policy PCS 5 (iii) of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) states that residential proposals for plot severance will only be permitted where sufficient land can be assembled to accommodate a type, scale, density and layout of development which preserves or enhances the area s residential character and does not harm the amenities of local residents. This position is reinforced by Policy PCS23 of the Core Strategy which seeks to ensure that development exhibits a high standard of design that will complement or enhance Poole's character and local distinctiveness by respecting the setting and character of the site, surrounding area and adjoining buildings by virtue of function, siting, landscaping and amenity space, scale, density, massing, height, design details, materials and appearance. The pattern of development in the area includes the three flatted blocks at Harry Paye Close. Whilst the Inspector noted that these blocks have 'sizeable areas of open space around them', much of this is parking and manoeuvring space. The proposals would provide adequate private amenity space to the rear; landscaped front gardens; and parking and turning areas. While the proposed plots would be smaller than those of adjoining properties on Ringwood and Linthorpe Road, the layout would result in a more central and spacious development than the two refused schemes and would overcome key refusal reasons relating to overdevelopment and the impact on the character and appearance of the area. The ridge heights of the proposed dwellings would be approximately 300mm higher than adjoining properties taking into account the varying ground levels. Given this marginal difference in height; the dwellings' proximity to the highway; and the intervening dwellings fronting Ringwood and Linthorpe Roads; the proposed dwellings would not be dominant or overbearing in the streetscene and would preserve the appearance of the adjoining locally listed Lady Wimborne cottages. The proposed houses would be in keeping with surrounding development in terms of their hipped, two-storey form and brick and render finish. Impact on residential amenity The Inspector for the most recent appeal concluded that the separation of the proposed dwellings would be sufficient to prevent any unacceptable impact in terms of loss of outlook; 8

9 light; or privacy. In that case the proposed dwellings were oriented to face the rear of dwellings on Linthorpe Road and 1.5 storeys high with eaves dormers on the front elevation. The rear elevation featured a catslide roof with rooflights. The long rear gardens of properties on Linthorpe and Ringwood Roads are such that the minimum window-to-window distance from the proposed houses would be approximately 24m. Notwithstanding the higher ground level of the site and the 2-storey scale of development, this separation distance would ensure that the proposals would not result in any material loss of outlook; overshadowing; or loss of privacy. There is already established mutual overlooking of rear gardens. There would be no windows on side elevations to prevent material overlooking within the development, or of the shorter rear gardens in Harry Paye Close. The proposed development would not be overbearing or result in harmful overshadowing of any adjacent home. There would be no material disturbance to neighbouring amenity through residential use of the site and parking and manoeuvring of cars considering the relatively low number of units proposed and the depth of adjoining gardens. Details of landscaping, including boundary treatments, can be secured by condition. The proposed access would reduce the size of the communal gardens of some existing flats in Harry Payne Close. They would however retain adequate amenity space. Access and parking The proposal would provide car parking; splays; and turning onsite in accordance with the Council's guidelines. A separate bike store would not typically be required for dwellings with private rear gardens. The provision of footpaths or landscaping adjacent to the entrance doors to the existing flats which abut the access would preserve pedestrian safety. The width of the access at this point would only allow one car to pass. This would reduce vehicle speed within the site and is acceptable given the number of dwellings proposed. The proposal is supported by the Transportation Officer subject to details of surfacing, lighting, drainage and levels to ensure the access would be to an adoptable standard. Waste collection ECPS previously objected to the 2011 application because of the distance residents would need to wheel their bins to a communal bin store in Harry Paye Close. Whilst the applicant proposed that a private waste collection service could be used, the Inspector agreed that the Council had a statutory duty to provide a refuse service if requested by residents to do so and that the distance residents would have to wheel their bins would be excessive. This '[reinforced] the view that the proposal would be out of keeping with its surroundings' but did not constitute a determining issue. The applicant has again proposed that a private waste collection service could be used, however, as was the case previously, this could not be enforced as the Council has a statutory duty to provide such a service. Under the existing arrangement, the Council's refuse lorry reverses into Harry Paye Close to collect communal black bins from the existing bin store whilst staff walk onto the site and gather the smaller recycling bins for collection on Ringwood Road. This is not standard procedure considering the distance involved and since the road is unadopted. Further discussions with ECPS have indicated that if residents 9

10 were to take their bins to the existing bin store on collection day it would be an acceptable solution subject to the Council being indemnified against liability for any damage to the access surface. ECPS would not accept refuse vehicles reversing further into the site given the size of the vehicles and the potential for conflict with vehicles and pedestrians. The occupants of the proposed dwellings would therefore have to wheel their bins approximately 35-80m for collection. While this is not ideal, the site is flat and the route would be hard-surfaced. The bins would be standard household size and would only need to be moved for collection fortnightly. The proposal is acceptable in all other respects and would provide six family homes with reasonable amenity space in a highly sustainable location. The proposed arrangement is acceptable in principle and a refuse management plan to reflect these requirements can be secured by condition. Drainage A number of objections raise concerns about surface water drainage given the raised ground levels on the site. Since the site is not within any Flood Zone a flood risk assessment is not required for a development of this scale. Notwithstanding this, a SUDs plan has been provided. Soakaways to the front or rear of the site would be appropriate in principle. Adequate drainage would need to be provided to meet building regulations. A large area of the site would be lawned and permeable surfacing can be secured by condition. Sustainability Being new build, it would be readily possible to achieve an energy efficient and sustainable development in accordance with Policies PCS32 and PCS35. This can be secured by condition. Further matters Any damage caused to neighbouring property during construction works would be a civil matter. INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS Mitigation 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) this confirms that dwellings are CIL liable development and are required to pay CIL in accordance with the rates set out in the Council s Charging Schedule. The site is within 5km (but not within 400m) of Heathland SSSI and the proposed net increase in dwellings may be acceptable subject to appropriate mitigation of their impact upon the Heathland. As part of the Dorset Heathland Planning Framework a contribution will be taken from all qualifying residential development to fund Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) in respect of the internationally important Dorset Heathlands. The charge is based on the cost of delivering SAMM in Poole and is 355 per additional house (plus admin fee). This proposal requires such a contribution. The applicant has submitted a Section 111 Agreement and paid the contribution of

11 (plus admin fee). The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of Core Strategy Policies PCS15, PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37; DPD Policies DM9, IN1 and IN2; and the Dorset Heathlands SPD. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS This application currently falls into CIL Zone C which has a base CIL chargeable rate of 75 per square metre of chargeable residential floorspace. The precise CIL liability in respect of these proposals 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. The CIL liability will be the product of the chargeable residential floorspace and the base CIL chargeable rate indexed against the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index for November If this development is granted permission and the dwellings built, the Council might also be eligible to receive government grant under the New Homes Bonus. 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 them. CONCLUSION The proposed development would assemble sufficient land to accommodate a type, scale, density and layout of development which preserves the area s character, residential amenity and highway safety subject to compliance with the attached conditions. The application is therefore recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted With CIL Contribution 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. PL01 (Plans Listing) 3. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, detailed particulars and plans of the levels, drainage and street lighting of the access road shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the agreed details prior to first residential occupation and thereafter retained and maintained in perpetuity. Reason - In the interests of providing a safe and suitable access in accordance with Policies DM7 and DM8 of the Site Specific and Development Management DPD and Policies PCS15 and PCS26 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted 2009, and the National 11

12 Panning Policy Framework (March 2012). 4. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential) (10%) 5. AA01 (Non standard Condition) Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, a Refuse Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include details of bin stores and details of the position of the bin collection point within Phase 1 of Harry Paye Close. The Refuse Management Plan shall be implemented and adhered to thereafter in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To facilitate an efficient waste collection service and in the interests of residential amenity and pedestrian and driver safety in accordance with Policies DM7 and DM8 of the Site Specific and Development Management DPD and Policies PCS5, PCS15, PCS23 and PCS26 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted) 7. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays) 8. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 9. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition) 10. GN040 (Materials as shown on drawings) 11. GN100 (No Further Windows in Specified Elevatio) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any subsequent re-enactments thereof, no windows or doors (other then those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed above ground floor level on the north east or south west (side) elevations of the development hereby permitted. Reason - To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012). Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval) 3. IN81 (SAMM Approval) 12

13 ITEM NO 02 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/00057/C APPLICATION TYPE Change of Use SITE ADDRESS 53 Lilliput Road, Poole, BH14 8JX PROPOSALS Internal alterations and change of use from a bungalow to a children's nursery REGISTERED 20 January, 2017 APPLICANT Ms Dickie AGENT Pure Town Planning WARD Penn Hill CASE OFFICER Caroline Palmer INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr Ms Atkinson and Cllr Iyengar because of residents' concerns. Recommendation for Grant with Conditions THE PROPOSAL Internal alterations and change of use from a bungalow to a 23 place nursery for children aged 2 to 5 years, with 3 members of staff. MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to:- Impact upon the character of the area Impact upon residential amenities Transportation implications SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is adjacent to the entrance drive to Lilliput First School, and is occupied by a bungalow once occupied by the School's caretaker. The school is set back from Lilliput Road behind a large staff car park. The site is surrounded by trees covered by Tree Preservation Order and falls within the ridges and skylines and coastal character zones policy. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Lilliput School 2013: Retain existing 2-storey modular classrooms. Approved (Temporary until August 13

14 2015) (13/00114) Lilliput Road 2009: 37 place Nursery. Refused on grounds of noise and disturbance; increased traffic movements; lack of parking and turning; and potential harm to protected trees (08/17422/004) PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS Natural England: The proposal is unlikely to affect European Protected Species on the site and refers the applicant to its standing advice. Early Years Education: Whilst the agent states that there is community need for this type of use, a shortfall or specific need in this location has not been identified. REPRESENTATIONS Two letters of representation have been received in which the following concerns are raised: highway danger to existing busy Lilliput Road and increased congestion, no on site parking or turning and additional pressure from all day parking by Nursery staff, alternative modes of transport are limited, eg, irregular buses, 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) PCS15 Access and Movement PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS26 Delivering Locally Distinctive, Self-Reliant Places PCS25 Self-Reliant Communities Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012) Development Management Policies: 14

15 DM1 DM7 DM4 DM8 Design Accessibility and Safety Coastal Zone Demand Management PLANNING JUDGEMENT Character of the Area The existing bungalow would be converted into a Nursery by creating an internal play area at the rear in place of the existing habitable accommodation and part of the integral garage. The entrance would remain at the front, off the School driveway. One car parking space in front of the former garage would be retained (for one staff member). With minimal external change to only the front (north west) elevation the proposal would be in keeping with the area's existing character. Residential Amenities The nearest neighbour is the Vicarage, 10m away beyond a screened public footpath. Neighbours in Lilliput Road are 30m away and the Harbour Prospect flats block is 45m away to the west. The proposed use would not therefore result in significant noise or disturbance being experienced by any neighbours having regard to the relatively small number of nursery children proposed to be accommodated. Highway Implications Lilliput Road is a Local Distributor Road linking Sandbanks Road and Canford Cliffs Road which becomes busy during the rush hours. Increasing use of the car generally and further recent residential development in the vicinity together with the presence of the existing School contribute to this. However, the School has changed its form of entry with the loss of the Year 3 age group because of the implementation of the Age of Transfer programme. Prior to this change a higher number of children attended the First School and no particular strain on the highway network or specific safety concerns relating to pupil numbers were identified. Therefore it is very difficult to identify harm arising from a 23 child Nursery when a higher number of children and vehicle movements were previously associated with the School until fairly recently. Vehicular access to the School and the proposed Nursery is restricted so that parents have to drop-off and pick-up children by foot, using the available on-street parking on Lilliput Road and the adjoining roads of Greenwood Avenue; Anthonys Avenue; and Hurst Hill that connect to the School grounds by footpaths. The Nursery would operate between 7.30am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday and the applicants have stated that their proposal would 'spread out' the pick up and drop off times, which would not therefore peak at the same time as the current school traffic congestion peaks. The short morning period where drop-off at both School and Nursery could potentially coincide would not involve all 23 children. Some children at the Nursery may have siblings at Lilliput School so parents will already be parking in the area and additional traffic would not be created in these cases. The nursery refused permission 8 years ago at Lilliput Road was much larger and the circumstances were significantly different to the circumstances of the current application. The young age of the Nursery children (and to some extent those attending the First School) 15

16 would require parents to 'sign in' their children and potentially talk to staff, thereby diminishing the concern that parents would be encouraged to park illegally during 'quick' drop offs. The need to park for a longer time would therefore potentially reduce the likelihood of parents parking on the School's 'keep clear' markings on Lilliput Road, on the brow of the hill. The Council s Parking and Highway Layout in Development SPD requires one parking space for a Class D1 (Nursery) use of the size proposed. This reflects the likely low staff numbers associated with the use, which the applicant has indicated is likely to be three. The proposal incorporates one parking space and therefore complies with this guidance. Since the same guidelines would require the existing five room house to have two parking spaces there is an existing shortfall of one parking space associated with the current use. The proposal therefore complies with the Council's adopted guidance in respect of on-site parking provision and would have no more long term parking impact than the existing dwelling. The nursery would use all of the available internal space of the building and there would be no potential for future expansion without further planning permission. The applicants have confirmed that under the Nursery Regulations, 23 children is the maximum that can be accommodate within the building and it is also the minimum number for the operation of a viable Nursery. It would be important to ensure that children numbers remain low to keep associated traffic generation at a relatively low level. Therefore, with only 23 children and with the likely spread of drop-off / pick-up times, it can be assessed that the number of vehicles associated with the nursery parking in the area during the short peak traffic periods associated with Lilliput First School would be very low. It would therefore be difficult to demonstrate significant harm to highway safety and the refusal of planning permission for this reason could not be justified. CONCLUSION Whilst there is an existing 'spike' in traffic movements and congestion in the surrounding area at School pick-up and particularly drop-off times, it cannot be demonstrated that the introduction of a 23 place Nursery that would keep 'wider' times, would exacerbate this situation to the extent that significant highway danger would result or highway safety would be jeopardised. Parking requirements are met and there is no opportunity for incremental growth of this relatively small proposed nursery use. RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted with Conditions subject to the following: Conditions 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. RC060 (Limitation on Use) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactments thereof, the 16

17 development hereby approved shall be used for child nursery purposes only and for no other use purposes, whatsoever, including any other purpose in Class D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any subsequent re-enactment, without formal planning permission first being obtained. Reason - Due to the unique nature of the site and its close proximity to residential neighbours and School premises and in accordance with Policy PCS25 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009). 3. AA01 (Non standard Condition) The number of children attending the Nursery shall not exceed 23 at any one time. Reason - To ensure that traffic generation is retained at a low level in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policies DM7 and DM8 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies adopted HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision) 5. PL01 (Plans Listing) Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 17

18 ITEM NO 03 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/00332/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS 3 Marianne Road, Poole, BH12 5EF PROPOSALS Change of use from Use Class C3 to Use Class C4 HMO. REGISTERED 7 March, 2017 APPLICANT Mr Singh AGENT HLF Planning Ltd WARD Branksome East CASE OFFICER Caroline Palmer INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of Cllr Mrs Rampton because of residents' concerns over the number of HMO within the Talbot Village area. Recommendation for Grant with Conditions THE PROPOSAL Change of use from Use Class C3 (a dwelling house) to Use Class C4 (House in Multiple Occupation). MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to:- Impact upon the character of the area Imact upon residential amenities Transportation considerations SITE DESCRIPTION 3 Marianne Close is a detached 2-storey; red brick; 4-bed house on a residential estate of similar homes. There is currently garage space for two cars and driveway space for a further two cars. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY An Article 4 Direction made on 1st. October 2010 removed permitted development rights (Part 3 Class i of the Town and Country Planning (GPO) Order 1995 as amended) from homes in Talbot Village that would otherwise have allowed their change of use between Use Classes C3 (dwelling house) and C4 (HMO). The Article 4 was made 'to complement the approach being taken by Bournemouth Borough Council and to resist a concentration of Class C4 uses'. 18

19 PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None. CONSULTATIONS None REPRESENTATIONS 35 letters of objection have been received in which the following concerns are raised: Change in the character of homes and the area poor maintainence of HMO properties increase in traffic; noise; litter; and anti social behaviour no need for more accommodation with student campus to be built homes should be for locals further loss of garden to parking 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 PCS15 PCS23 PCS31 PCS35 Broad Locations for Residential Development Access and Movement Local Distinctiveness Sustainable Energy - General Energy And Resources Statements Poole Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (Adopted April 2012) Development Management Policies: DM1 Design DM7 Accessibility and Safety DM8 Demand Management SSA16 Talbot Village - Houses in Multiple Occupation. This states that: Within the area of Talbot Village identified on the Proposals Map, permitted development rights for proposals for a change of use from Use Class C3: Dwelling Houses to Use Class C4: Houses in Multiple Occupation will be removed by an Article 4 Direction. Planning applications subsequently required for such a change of use will be assessed and determined in accordance with the following: i. The likely material harm to the character and amenity of the surrounding residential 19

20 area and neighbouring properties; ii. That the proposal does not add to an existing cluster or concentration of HMO properties, which would result in likely material harm to the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area and neighbouring properties; iii. Resists the loss of private garages through conversion into living accommodation that could result in an increase in the level of on-street car parking; iv. The development should not result in an unacceptable level of on-street car parking; v. That there is suitable provision for the storage of waste and recycling bins; and vi. The development provides secure and covered cycle parking. Parking and Highway Layout in Development SPD Appendix F. PLANNING JUDGEMENT This application for change of use is required because of an Talbot Village Article 4 Direction. Local plan policy SSA16 is site specific to the area of this Direction and significant weight can properly be attached to its provisions in considering this application. Its six policy criteria therefore comprise the principle planning considerations to be addressed: i) Character and Amenity: The area's character is a spacious; modern; housing estate with the two expanding universities on its east side, beyond Fern Barrow. Whilst houses already occupied by students have sometimes been characterised as being associated with parking on front gardens; lack of property care; litter or noise, such traits cannot be presumed as necessarily associated with HMO use and any consideration of the proposal should therefore address the proposed land use rather than such presumptions. Class L of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) permits unconditional changes of use between Classes C3 (dwellinghouse) and C4 (small HMO). By doing so it recognises that the uses are similar in character and are therefore interchangeable without consequence or harm. The levels of activity associated with a HMO would, for instance, not be materially different to those potentially associated with the same house fully occupied by a family. The stated purpose of the Talbot Village Article 4 Direction was not to prevent the creation of HMO but to resist a concentration of such uses. No alterations to the house are proposed and it would retain the same external appearance. In itself, the use of a single house as a HMO would not be expected to materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of nearby residents. ii) Concentration of HMO: Of the 560 houses within Talbot Village approximately 25 of them are recorded as being occupied as HMO. This equates to less than 5% and does not represent a concentration that is harmful to the predominant form of tenure, which remains as family homes. There is one other HMO in Marianne Close. In the wider area around the application site there are 20

21 two HMO in Cull Close; one in Mullins Close; four in Vine Farm Close and two in Smithson Close. All of which are interspersed with family homes. It cannot therefore be concluded that this application would either enlarge or create a "cluster" of HMOs that would be detrimental to the established family homes residential environment. iii) Conversion of garages to living accommodation: There is no proposal to change the garage to living accommodation and the proposed use of part of the existing garage for bicycle and refuse storage would not prejudice the retention of adequate car parking to serve the proposed use. iv) On street Parking and Garaging: The Parking and Highways Layout in Development SPD requires one parking space per 4 occupants and the retained car parking would meet this adopted standard. v) Storage of waste: Part of the garage would be available for storing waste and bins, so that there would be no need for bins to clutter the street. vi) Cycle parking: Secure covered cycle parking would be available in the garage. CONCLUSION The proposal complies with the provisions of Policy SSA16 because there would be no demonstrable harm to the character of the area or amenities of the surrounding residential area or adjacent residents and since the proposals would not result in either a concentration or cluster of HMO. RECOMMENDATION It is therefore recommended that this application be Granted with Conditions subject to the following: Conditions 1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard)) 2. HW110 (Cycle Provision) 3. PL01 (Plans Listing) Informative Notes 1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval) 21

22 ITEM NO 04 APPLICATION NO. APP/17/00117/F APPLICATION TYPE Full SITE ADDRESS Site at 19 Floral Farm, Canford Magna, Wimborne, BH21 3AF PROPOSALS Erection of dwelling with associated parking REGISTERED 8 February, 2017 APPLICANT Mr Simester AGENT JN Planning Consultants Ltd WARD Merley & Bearwood CONSERVATION AREA Canford Magna CASE OFFICER James Gilfillan INTRODUCTION This application is brought before committee at the request of the applicant and with the Chairman's agreement Recommendation for Refuse THE PROPOSAL Erection of dwelling with associated parking MAIN ISSUES The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to whether the revised scheme has overcome the reasons for which the previous application was refused. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is on the west side of Canford Magna, the road through Canford Magna village. It is within the Canford Magna Conservation Area and there are listed and locally listed buildings immediately to the north of the site. The application site is part of the curtilage of Chenford House, a house fronting on to Canford Magna, but has been fenced off from it. The curtilage of Chenford House previously also included land to the south that has already been severed and a house is currently under construction on the land now known as 'Plot 55 Floral Farm'. The site has road frontage to Floral Farm, to the west of the original site, from which access would be taken. The ground levels of the site are approximately 1m above that of Canford Magna. There are trees on the site protected by an area Tree Preservation Order. 22

23 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 2011: Sever land at Chenford House (land previously known as Plot 55 Floral Farm) and erect a dwelling with access from Canford Magna. Approved (10/00899). This has been implemented and is under construction. 2016: Sever land at the side of Chenford House and erect a detached bungalow accessed from Floral Farm. Refused due to the harm to the character and appearance of the area, the site and Conservation Area; the contrived nature of the plot; the lack of space; the poor design of the proposed bungalow; and the failure to make a Dorset Heathlands SAMMs payment. (16/01110) PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE None COMMUNITY CONSULTATION None CONSULTATIONS Transportation Policy Manager: Supports the scheme as delivering sufficient parking and safe access and preserving highway and pedestrian safety. REPRESENTATIONS Letters of representation have been received in which the following concerns are raised: impact on amenity from noise and general disturbance exacerbated by the likely loss of trees, overlooking of the application site would be likely overshadowing and loss of privacy, lack of design detail and harm to the area, overdevelopment and cramped in combination with adjacent development at Chenford House. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS POLICY AND GUIDANCE STRATEGIC CONTEXT National Planning Policy Framework (Adopted March 2012) Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD. LOCAL CONTEXT The following policies are listed as applying to this application. Poole Core Strategy (2009) PCS05 Broad Locations for Residential Development PCS23 Local Distinctiveness PCS28 Dorset Heaths International Designations PCS31 Sustainable Energy - General PCS32 Sustainable Homes Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD (2012) 23

24 DM1 DM2 DM7 DM8 DM9 Design Heritage Assets Accessibility and Safety Demand Management Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Canford Magna Conservation Area 1977 (Amended 1992) Heritage Assets SPD 2013 PLANNING JUDGEMENT This scheme has been designed to overcome the reasons for which the previous application was refused. It proposes to sever land from the side and rear of the existing curtilage using the existing access from Floral Farm and to erect a detached house, designed to incorporate distinctive features of the buildings characteristic of the Canford Magna Conservation Area. The character of the area is predominantly residential. Canford Magna and Oakley Lane are dominated by the historic buildings associated with the village and the former manor house, now Canford school, and consisting of a variety of detached and terraced houses. Floral Farm it is dominated by detached low density houses in a mature landscape setting with an open plan layout. An additional residential plot would accord with the prevailing land uses. In response to the previous concerns about the principle of the proposed plot the application has been supported by a statement seeking to demonstrate that there are smaller plots within the Conservation Area. Notwithstanding this, any consideration of the impact of the plot must go beyond its measured area and must also address its layout and response to the prevailing pattern and characteristics of the area. The narrow plot is squeezed between the existing house and its northern boundary, consists of a corner of the existing curtilage and relying on a narrow strip extending through to Floral Farm in order to gain vehicle access. It would neither engage with a street nor front any road. Nor would it sit comfortably between neighbouring properties or its boundaries. The applicant has sought to justify their proposal by reference to plots along Oakley Lane, including a consent there given in 1995, and therefore pre-dating the current Development Plan. Oakley Lane nevertheless has a wholly different character and context to the application site. The 2011 consent given to erect a house to the south of the application site satisfied the requirements of PCS05 and did not compromise Chenford House or undermine its contribution to the character of the Conservation Area and streetscene. The proposed plot has been made slightly larger than previously considered unacceptable by moving the east boundary forward of the front elevation of Chenford House and closer to Canford Magna road by 2.5m. This change does little to the characteristics of the plot or its relevance to the surrounding context. Furthermore there have not been any changes to the Local Plan; Conservation Area appraisal or context of the application site such as might lead to a different view from that taken in 2016 that the contrived nature, siting and layout of the plot would be unacceptable; that it failed to assemble sufficient land to preserve the residential character of the area; and that it would be detrimental to the character and attributes of the Conservation Area. 24

25 The change of scale to a house, rather than a bungalow, with proportions, roof height and shape that better respects the context, is a significant improvement. Subject to securing details of materials, enhanced design details around windows and the potential addition of a chimney, the revised design would preserve the character of the area and Conservation Area. Had the scheme been acceptable in other respects these changes and details could have been sought. A house would be more visible from the road at the front of the site, sitting as it would between the Old School House to the north and Chenford House to the south. This would highlight its presence and its small contrived plot. Whilst it is not uncommon to view buildings located in one street from another, the proposed house would not readily relate to any streetscene and would be isolated from the prevailing pattern and layout of development in the area. The siting of the proposed house and presence of trees and surrounding plots would screen it from public views from Floral Farm. The distinctive open-plan character of large landscaped plots in Floral Farm would nevertheless further highlight the contrived and awkward layout and siting of the proposed plot. The smaller footprint of the house has allowed cars to be parked beside the house in a manner that would not be so visible from Floral Farm and to provide manoeuvring space that would allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. The level of traffic generated by the development would not prejudice highway safety on Floral Farm. The proposed garden area would be adequate for the size of the house proposed, but would be significantly smaller than the plots around it. Of more significance is the extent to which both neighbours would overlook the proposed garden, leaving any occupier with the perception of being overlooked, and therefore compromising the privacy and amenity value of the space, irrespective of its size. There would be little more than 10m between facing windows in the first floor of Chenford House and the proposed house and this would allow an intrusive degree of overlooking between these neighbours. The finished floor levels of Old School Cottage, the neighbouring house to the north, are lower than the proposed house. The proximity of the proposed house to the common boundary and its size would make it highly visible in the outlook from this neighbouring house and plot; would give rise to overshadowing; and would be overbearing. However whilst the amenity of the neighbour would be significantly affected, due to the size of the adjoining plot, its orientation and spread of garden around the house and varied outlook, the impacts would not materially compromise or fundamentally undermine the amenity enjoyed by the occupier. Being a new build it would be possible to deliver an energy efficient and sustainable development. PCS32 requires development to secure 10% of its energy needs from renewable sources. No details of how this could be achieved have been provided and solar PV may not be an appropriate solution for a sensitive Conservation Area location such as this. Alternative means of meeting this policy could be demonstrated, secured by an appropriate condition. 25