BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 13 FEBRUARY 2014

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

13 FEBRUARY 2014

The Meeting commenced at 1:00pmand concluded at 4:28pm.

Present:

Councillor Eades (Chairman)

Councillor Pawlowski (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Brown, Burden, Mrs Clements, Mrs Haines (substitute for Councillor Woodcock), Parker, Potter, Mrs Wilson and Wilson (until 2:50pm)

Others in attendance:

Councillors Mrs Moore and Mrs Slade

Members of the public present: Approximately 23

PC72.14APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Woodcock.

PC73.14DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

Other non statutory interests Members wished to be recorded

Councillor Eades had been lobbied on Plans List Items No’s 3 and 4.

Councillor Pawlowski had been lobbied on Plans List Item No’s 3, 4, 5 and Agenda Item No.4

Councillor Brown had been lobbied on Plans List Item No’s 3 and 4.

Councillor Burden had been lobbied on Plans List Item No.1.

Councillor Mrs Clements had been lobbied on Plans List Items No’s 1, 3 and 4.

Councillor Parker had been lobbied on Plans List Items 3 and 4.

Councillor Mrs Haines had been lobbied on Plans List Item No.5 and Agenda Item No.4.

Councillor Potter had been lobbied on Plans List Items No’s 3 and 4.

Councillor Mrs Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Items No’s 3 and 4.

Councillor Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Items No’s 1, 3 and 4.

PC74.14MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Committee, held on 9 January 2014, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

PC75.147 WILDERTON ROAD – APP/12/101436/F

James Larson reminded Members that at the Planning Committee Meeting in November 2013, it was Resolved to defer consideration of an Application at 7 Wilderton Road for the demolition of the existing block of 6 flats and the construction of a new block of flats with basement parking to allow the Applicants to engage with Officers of the Council in order to address specific matters that were of concern to the Planning Committee.

The Planning Officer summarised the background to the Application, the proposed amendments to the original scheme and the proposed conditions as set out in Section 3 of the Officer’s Report.

A Member stated that he was pleased to note that the original deferment was a worthwhile exercise as now Applicants and Officers had come forward with an excellent scheme.

Laurie Marlow, Applicant, summed up his views, details included:

  • Had worked closely with Officers in order to produce an acceptable scheme.
  • Had overcome issues previously raised by Members.
  • Amendments to glazing.
  • No harmful impact.
  • No noise disturbance.

RESOLVED that this Application be Granted with Conditionssubject to the followingConditions:

GN150 Time Expiry 3yrs

GN030Sample of Materials

TR010Arboricultural Method Statement – Submission Required

GN080Screening to Balcony

GN090Obscure Glazing of Windows

HW100Parking and Turning Provision

HW230Permeable Surfacing

GN160Sustainable Homes – Code Level 3

LS020Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted

GN020Storage of Refuse

GN070Remove use (of flat roof) as Balcony

TR080Replanting of a Specified Number of Trees

PL01Plans Listing

Voting:For - Unanimous

PC76.14PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

PC77.14PLANNING APPEALS RECEIVED AND PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

The Information Report was noted.

PC78.14PLANNING ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

The Information Report was noted.

PC79.14SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION

There was no urgent business.

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 13 FEBRUARY 2014

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO / 01
APPLICATION NO. / APP/13/01532/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / Trinidad House, 3 Rossmore Road, Poole, BH12 3NF
PROPOSALS / Demolish existing and erect a block of 54 extra care apartments with communal facilities and associated external works.
REGISTERED / 19 December, 2013
APPLICANT / Borough of Poole & Poole Housing Partnership
AGENT / Quattro Design Architects
WARD / Newtown
CASE OFFICER / James Gilfillan

The Application was before the Committee as the Borough of Poole was the landowner and joint Applicant with Poole Housing Partnership and because the Application was for Affordable Housing and was not of a minor nature.

James Gilfillan, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet, and, in particular, details of the consultation response from Natural England and an amended proposed recommendation delegating approval to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services upon the expiry of the notification period of 13 February 2014.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the Pre-application Advice, community consultation, consultation, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that, whilst it was excepted that the Scheme would have a significant impact upon the character and appearance of the area, the change would not harm the established character and appearance, nor would it harm the residential amenities of neighbours and existing residents. Furthermore, it was considered that the Scheme would contribute to the sense of place, support the Community and provide much needed and modern affordable extra care accommodation that would substantially outweigh any concerns over the impact of the building on the appearance of the Site.

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

  • Extra Care flats were not the same as conventional flats and, consequently, it was not envisaged that vehicle movements would increase.
  • CIL contributionsrelated only to the six private sector flats.

A Member stated that the Proposal addressed an acute need in the Borough, fitted in with the Trinidad House and, consequently, fully supported the Application.

A Member stated that the Borough had an ageing population and the Proposal was for an excellent facility.

A Member stated that he had a slight concern regarding the effect on the street scene in terms of scale and mass.

RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services to Approve planning permission subject to CIL, upon expiry of notification period, subject to no further representations being received which raise matters not already considered by the Planning Committee.

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))
2. PL01 (Plans Listing)
3. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
Prior to the first occupation of the building, the site operator shall provide a statement with supporting viability information demonstrating that no less that 22 flats will be made available to the Council as Affordable Housing, as defined in the adopted Affordable Housing SPD 2011, and thereafter retained as such (subject to Right to Buy).
Reason:
In order to ensure the appropriate level of affordable housing is provided and in accordance with PCS06 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009.
4. GN050 (Matching Materials)
5. GN120 (Storage of Refuse)
6. HW080 (First 4.5 Metres Constructed)
7. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)
8. HW110 (Cycle Provision)
9. LS050 (Hard Landscaping)
10. GN161 (BREEAM)
11. NP080 (Fume Extraction Equipment)
12. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt)
13. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
The communal areas, cafe, lounge, dining and consulting, meeting and treatment rooms on the Ground Floor of the building hereby approved shall be available for any residents of Trinidad Village and visitors.
Reason.
In the interests of social interaction, improving the opportunities and welfare for all of the residents on the site and the weight attached to this opportunity in the planning judgement.

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with Applicants: Approval)
2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval)

Voting:For – Unanimous

______

ITEM NO / 02
APPLICATION NO. / APP/13/01515/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 3 Dorset Lake Avenue, Poole, BH14 8JD
PROPOSALS / Demolish existing house and erect 4 no. detached houses.
REGISTERED / 9 December, 2013
APPLICANT / Mr Huntley
AGENT / Empery and Co Ltd
WARD / Penn Hill
CASE OFFICER / Darryl Howells

The Application was before the Committee at the request of Councillor Parker due to concerns over scale, mass, local distinctiveness and location.

Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant planning history, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the area had a sufficiently mixed character to absorb the addition of a block of flats. Whilst the Scheme would be larger and more prominent on the Site than the existing house, it would preserve the distinctive landscape characteristics of a sloping site, dominance of trees and landscape setting, there would be sufficient space around the building to sit comfortably in the street scene, maintaining the separation from the road and the design would preserve the character and appearance of the shoreline.

The Senior Planning Officer added that safe vehicle access to the Site would be provided, important trees would be protected and retained and space provided for new tree planting, the amenities of neighbours would not be harmed, nor the integrity of the important habitats in Poole Harbour and the species therein.

Mrs Tyler, Objector, expressed her views, details included:

  • Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak
  • Lived opposite the Application Site
  • Objecting on behalf of herself, family and neighbours
  • Had objected to the previously approved Application
  • Inadequate size of plot
  • Each property would sit on a plot size of only 300 square metres
  • Referred to refused application at No.302 Sandbanks Road
  • Quoted PCS23
  • Quoted from the Planning Design and Access Statement
  • Scheme would dwarf neighbouring shops
  • Totally unacceptable

Mr Tanner, Agent for the Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

  • Referred to the previous appeal decisions
  • Previous approval remained “extant”
  • Upper floor would be “stepped back”
  • Second floor would appear subservient to lower floor
  • No loss of light
  • Relationship with other properties carefully considered
  • No planning harm
  • No conflict with the streetscene
  • Urged that Members approve the Application

Officers responded to Members’ request for clarification, details included:

  • No change in the amount of the amenity space from the extant scheme
  • Car parking arrangements met the Council’s requirements

Ward Councillor Parker stated that the Scheme would result in a loss of residential amenity, the mass/height was out of context and the appearance would be overbearing.

The Chairman stated that he agreed with Ward Councillor Parker, however, the “stone had been cast” by the Inspector’s decision and, as a result, the Proposal was acceptable.

Mrs Tyler summed up her views, details included:

  • Four large homes squeezedinto one plot
  • Additional mass
  • Overbearing
  • “Death by a thousand cuts”
  • Urged Members to refuse the Scheme

Mr Tanner did not take up his opportunity to sum up.

RESOLVED that this Application beGranted with CIL Contribution

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))
2. RC010 (Remove Residential Permitted Development)
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, no further windows on any of the houses hereby approved other than those authorised by this permission shall be installed without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.
Reason -
To safeguard neighbouring residential amenities from harmful overlooking and in accordance with Policy PCS5 (v) and PCS23(A) of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009).
3. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition)
4. GN070 (Remove Use as Balcony)
5. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
Prior to the commencement of development, details, measures and means of delivering an energy efficient development, in accordance with the applicant's energy and resource statement, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details, processes and equipment shall then be implemented, installed and retained.
Reason:
In order to ensure the delivery of a sustainable and energy efficient scheme and in accordance with Policies PCS31, PCS32(ii) and (iii) and PCS35 of the Poole Core Strategy Adopted Feb 2009 and guidance contained within Section 10 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).
6. GN030 (Sample of Materials)
7. TR030 (Implementation of Details of Arb M Stmt)
8. PL01 (Plans Listing)
9. HW100 (Parking/Turning Provision)
10. HW200 (Provision of Visibility Splays)
11. LS020 (Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted)
12. TR080 (Replanting of Specified Number of Trees) - 4 trees

Informative Notes

1. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval)
2. IN72 (Working with Applicants: Approval)

Voting:For – 5Against – 2 Abstentions – 3

______

ITEM NO / 03
APPLICATION NO. / APP/13/01129/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 338 Sandbanks Road, Poole, BH14 8HY
PROPOSALS / Demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site with the construction of a new building providing 8 apartments, including associated infrastructure, car and cycle parking and amenity space. (Amended plans received 16/12/13)
REGISTERED / 9 September, 2013
APPLICANT / Clark Estates UK Limited
AGENT / Terence O'Rourke
WARD / Penn Hill
CASE OFFICER / James Gilfillan

The Application was before the Committee at the request of Councillor Parker, because of concerns of local residents.

The Meeting was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 13 February 2014, which commenced at 11:45am and concluded at 12:10pm. Councillors Eades, Pawlowski, Brown, Burden, Mrs Clements, Parker, Potter, Mrs Wilson, Wilson and Mrs Haines were in attendance.

James Gilfillan, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site plans as appended to the Report and images of the Site and surrounding area.

Reference was made to the Addendum sheet, and, in particular, details of additional representations.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the pre-application advice, relevant planning history, consultations, representations, planning consideration and judgement.

In conclusion the Senior Planning Officer stated that, whilst the Scheme resulted in a larger, taller building, covering more of the plot, due to its design, layout and position on theSite, it would still preserve the distinctive characteristics and appearance of the Site and Shoreline, the sloping ground, dominant trees on the Site and the backdrop of trees and glimpses of the harbour. It would make efficient use of the Site, delivering additional residential development whilst preserving the mix of residential character of the area. Highway safety would be preserved and the Scheme would make provision for a financial contribution towards Affordable Housing.

Mr Henderson, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

  • Speaking on behalf of neighbours at 340 Sandbanks Road
  • Area made up of low density properties on large plots
  • Quoted PCS5 which precluded flatted development
  • Family house would be “boxed in” by flats
  • Scale out of character
  • Adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties
  • Development one storey too high
  • Proposal did not enhance the area
  • The property would extend beyond the rear building line
  • Screening was not solid
  • Loss of light

Mr Williams/Ms Goodyear, Applicants, expressed their views, details included:

  • Suitable design for a stunning location
  • Most efficient use of the Site
  • Had worked closely with Planning and Regeneration Services
  • Had made a significant reduction in the height of the building
  • Penthouse – “stepped back”
  • 8 letters of support
  • Minimum impact on neighbouring properties
  • Had managed to open up views from the road
  • Design not detrimental to the streetscene
  • Had considered the impact on neighbouring properties when designing the property
  • Replants would result in a net increase of 3 trees

Officers responded to Members’ requests for clarification, details included:

  • Details of the bin store were highlighted on the screen
  • Details were provided of other blocks of flats in the area
  • Tree planting was covered by condition No.9

Ward Councillor Parker expressed his views, details included:

  • Quoted PCS5 and PCS23
  • Totally out of character
  • Adverse effect on neighbouring amenity

A Member stated that he was concerned about the loss of trees, the incursion on the rear building line and the impact on neighbouring properties.

A Member stated that she was not against flatted development in the area but felt that the Application would be too far back in the Site and, due to its mass was detrimental to the area.

Mr Henderson summarised his views, details included:

  • Proposal would not enhance existing glimpses of the sea
  • Requested that Members refuse the Scheme

Mr Williams/Ms Goodyear summed up their views, details included:

  • Each Application should be viewed on its own merits
  • Area already had varied building lines

On being put to the Vote, the Officer recommendation to approve was LOST.

Voting:Against – Unanimous

Members continued by discussing reasons for refusal, details included:

  • Overbearing
  • Overshadowing/overlooking
  • Loss of trees
  • Height and mass, unduly prominent

RESOLVED,contrary to Officer recommendation, planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The scheme would, due to its height and depth of projection in to the site, give rise to levels of overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking that would be materially harmful to the privacy and amenities of the adjacent houses contrary to PCS05 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, and DM01 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies 2012.

2. The scheme would, due to its size and siting require the removal of mature trees that are an important feature of the existing streetscene and character of the site and area, which the proposed scheme could not adequately compensate for. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policies PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, and DM01 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies 2012.

3. The proposals would, due to the height and mass of the proposed building, be unduly prominentwhen viewed from Poole Harbour and would be detrimental to the character and setting of the shoreline and harbour, contrary to Policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009 and DM04 of the Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2012.