BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 13 NOVEMBER 2014

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

13NOVEMBER 2014

The Meeting commenced at 1:00pm and concluded at 3:25pm

Present:

Councillor Eades (Chairman)

Councillor Pawlowski (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Brown, Burden, Mrs Butt, JoClements, Parker, Mrs Wilson and Wilson

Others in Attendance:

Councillors Mrs Moore and Woodcock

Members of the public: Approximately 12

PC30.14APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence.

PC31.14DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

Other Non-Statutory Interests Members Wished to be Recorded

Councillors Brown and Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Items nos. 4, 5 and 8.

Councillor Jo Clements had been lobbied on Plans List Items nos. 2, 5 and 8

Councillor Parker had been lobbied on Plans List Items nos. 2 and 8

Councillors Burden, Mrs Butt, Eades, Pawlowski and Mrs Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Item nos. 2, 4, 5 and 8

Councillor Eades Declared that whilst he was an acquaintance of the Applicant for Plans List Item no. 8, he did not have a pecuniary interest

PC32.14MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on16October 2014 be approved at the December Meeting

PC33.14PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

PC34.14PLANNING APPEALS RECEIVED AND PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

The Information Report was noted.

PC35.14SUCH 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 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 13 NOVEMBER 2014

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO / 01
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/00959/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 48 Banks Road, Poole, BH13 7QF
PROPOSALS / Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of No. 8 Apartment Dwellings with associated parking.
REGISTERED / 6 August, 2014
APPLICANT / Reefacre Ltd
AGENT / Western Design Architects
WARD / Canford Cliffs
CASE OFFICER / Caroline Palmer

This Item was withdrawn prior to the Meeting

ITEM NO / 02
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/00751/P
APPLICATION TYPE / Outline
SITE ADDRESS / 40 Clifton Road, Poole, BH14 9PP
PROPOSALS / Outline Planning Permission to demolish existing building and erect 3no. 4 bedroom houses with associated parking
REGISTERED / 23 June, 2014
APPLICANT / Mr & Mrs J Parker
WARD / Penn Hill
CASE OFFICER / Clare Spiller

The Application was before the Committee at the request of the Applicant and because of the history of the Site.

Clare Spiller, 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, pre- application advice, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the Scheme would fail to preserve the residential character and appearance of the area.

John Parker, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

  • Three years since initial application
  • Other similar applications had been approved
  • Had been subject to a difficult process
  • Case Officer had changed throughout the application
  • Refuse bins could be stored in garages
  • aimed to create more affordable housing in an expensive area

Officers responded to Members requests for clarification, details included:

  • No additional trees would be lost.

A Member expressed concern over landscaping arrangements and the over-development of the area.

The Chairman added that there seemed to be an ever-growing trend of sub-division within the Borough and was fearful about the loss of the sylvan setting within the area.

John Parker summed up his views, details included:

  • Understood Members’ concerns but believed that the Scheme would provide more affordable homes in an otherwise exclusive area.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Refused for the following reasons:

Reasons

1. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
The proposed further plot sub-division to form a pair of semi-detached houses would result in uncharacteristically narrow plots which would be at odds with and harmful to the prevailing character of Clifton Road which is here characterised by detached dwellings set in generous plots. The provision of car parking and refuse storage facilities would further erode of the landscaping to the road frontage and the proposals would therefore fail to provide a setting for the semi detached housing. Furthermore, the proposed increase in bulk of built form arising from increasing the eaves and ridge height to both the detached house and semi-detached houses, would appear incongruous in the street scene due to the increased gap between the top of first floor windows and the eaves and the buildings being perceived as prominent 3-storey houses. The proposals are therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy PCS5 and PCS23 of the Poole Local Plan Adopted 2009.

Informative Notes

1. IN73 (Working with applicants: Refusal)
2. IN75 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Refusal)
3. IN76 (List of Plans Refused)

Voting:For - Unanimous

ITEM NO / 03
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/01081/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 42 Beamish Road, Poole, BH17 8SH
PROPOSALS / Sever land and erect 1 No 2 bedroom house with parking (amended plan received 01/10/2014).
REGISTERED / 3 September, 2014
APPLICANT / Hoyland Homes Ltd
AGENT / Anders Roberts & Assoc
WARD / Canford Heath East
CASE OFFICER / Caroline Palmer

The Application was before the Committee at the request of Ward Councillor Mrs Moore.

Caroline Palmer, 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, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the Scheme complied with the provisions of the relevant policies in the Core Strategy and the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies DPD.

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

  • Tight plot
  • A garage would need to be demolished
  • Impact to the streetscene
  • Impact on traffic
  • Would be overbearing
  • Driveways would be unusable
  • Adverse impact on neighbouring property
  • Scheme allowed for only three cars
  • There had been no consultation
  • Loss of amenity
  • Would impact the housing mix.

Matt Annen, Applicant, expressed his views, details included

  • There would be two spaces for the existing dwelling and a single space for the new dwelling
  • Complied with highways regulations
  • Scheme shouldn’t be penalised for existing problems.
  • There were other terraced properties in the vicinity
  • Similar applications had been approved locally
  • Scheme designed to look like an extension
  • Complied with PCS05 and PCS03
  • Increased the garden area.
  • The Council would receive a government grant
  • There would be no detriment to the area.

Ward Councillor Mrs Moore expressed her views, details included:

  • Properties within road were all detached or semi-detached
  • Would involve reducing the width of neighbour’s driveway
  • Out of character
  • Inadequate parking
  • Concerns over congestion
  • Scheme was squashed into a small plot
  • Concerns over highway safety
  • Requested that Members refused Planning Permission.

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

  • The Application was in accordance with the SPD
  • The Application would be 1.5 metres from the pavement at its nearest point and 2.8 metres from its furthest.

A Member expressed his disappointment over seeing the loss of traditional 70’s/80’s housing estates to overdevelopment and that the Proposal was not only a significant change, but was also going to harm the character of the area.

A Member added that she felt that the Proposal would be too close to the pavement, causing it to be overbearing and would not be in keeping with the area.

A Member stated that he had some serious concerns about the Proposal and feared that if allowed, could cause similar schemes to occur that would damage this estate and the amenities that its residents enjoy.

(NOTE: Councillor Jo Clements left the Meeting.)

The Chairman explained that whilst the driveway was a civil matter, and that the values of other properties was not a consideration, he felt the Proposal was overbearing and not right for the area.

Mr Arnold summed up his views, details included:

  • Surprised by Mr Annen’s comments
  • Closest part to the proposal was 1.2 metres from the pavement
  • Requested that Members refused the proposal

Mr Annen summed up his views, details included:

  • There had been no objection from highways
  • Complied with PCS05 and PCS03

On being put to the vote, the Officer recommendation to approve was LOST

Voting: For – 0Against – 8 Abstained – 1

Members continued by discussing reasons for refusal, details included:

  • Overbearing
  • Harm to character of the area
  • Proximity to pathway

RESOLVED that contrary to Officer recommendation, Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

Reason

The proposed house fails to assemble sufficient land to accommodate a scale, density and layout of development which would preserve or enhance the area’s existing character. The proposed house would notrespect the setting and character of the site; the surrounding area; or adjoining buildings by virtue of its plot size and density. Furthermore, the proposed house would erode the spacious nature of the corner plot due to its uncharacteristic proximity to the adjacent footway. As such, the proposed house fails tocomply with the provisions of Policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009).

Informative Notes

1.IN73 (Working with Applicants – Refusal)

2.IN75 (CIL – Refusal)

3.IN76 (List of plans refused)

Voting:For – 7Against – 0Abstained - 1

ITEM NO / 04
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/00795/C
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / Whitecliff Lodge, 166 Sandbanks Road, Poole, BH14 8EN
PROPOSALS / Use of the building as a combined home and office (Sui Generis)
REGISTERED / 25 June, 2014
APPLICANT / Marina View Ltd
AGENT / Tanner & Tilley Planning Ltd
WARD / Parkstone
CASE OFFICER / James Larson

The Application was before the Committee due to the proximity of the site to the home of Councillor Adams.

(NOTE: Councillor Jo Clements rejoined the Meeting.)

James Larson, 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, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgement.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the Proposal would respect the residential character of the area, would not harm amenities and would provide sufficient parking and access.

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

  • Proposal was opposite a QE Field in Trust
  • The building was subject to covenants
  • Applicant could change usage at a later date
  • Could be used as light industry
  • Could be used as a party house or a taxi firm HQ
  • Increased traffic in area

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

  • No parking restrictions in area
  • Will attract more traffic
  • Already difficult to exit properties in this area
  • Was on a busy cycle route
  • Parking would not be sufficient
  • Signs or notice boards would detract from the amenity of the area

Mr Holmes, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

  • No immediate neighbours
  • Was a proposal for combined use
  • No external alterations to building
  • One extra parking space to be created
  • No impact on neighbouring amenity
  • No issues highlighted by transportation officer
  • Complied with PCS01
  • Sufficient parking
  • Application could not be changed without further application.

Ward Councillor Woodcock expressed his views, details included:

  • This Application could be a trojan horse
  • Parking concerns
  • Not consistent with the residential area
  • Plot was “a difficult corner”
  • Existing traffic problems
  • Asked Members to refuse the Application.
  • If minded to allow, could a condition be imposed?

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

  • Sui Generis was a use that does not fall into a particular use class, meaning that it must stay at its specified use at time of application and any changes to the use would need to be in the form of a new planning application

A Member explained that he found the loss of a family home to be troubling, and as a result would not be supporting the Application.

A Member stated that she believed one of the conditions unenforceable. She added that Turks Lane was far too congested to accommodate further vehicles.

The Chairman explained that historically, this was a park lodge where someone would have lived and worked anyway. He added that the Committee should not be penalising the Applicant for existing problems in Turks Lane.

Mrs Marsden and Mr Pitman summed up their views, details included:

  • Suspicious application
  • Clients would use Turks Lane to park
  • Shortage of family homes locally.

Mr Holmes summed up his views, details included:

  • No external alterations
  • No harm to amenity of the area
  • No impact on the area
  • Referred to the condition requiring someone to live at the property

On being put to the vote, the Officer recommendation to grant Planning Permission was LOST.

Voting: For – 3 Against – 4 Abstained – 2

Members continued by discussing reasons for refusal, details included:

  • Would result in the loss of a family home
  • Plenty of commercial property in the town

RESOLVED that contrary to Officer recommendation,Planning Permission be Refused for the following reason:

Reasons

The proposed use would result in the loss of a substantial detached dwelling house in a location that is predominantly residential in character. Such family homes in established residential areas have a crucial role in delivering a balanced housing market and the retention of such homes in areas not identified for intensification by Policy PCS5 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009) is important for meeting Poole’s housing needs.

Informative Notes

  1. IN73 (Working with Applicants – Refusal)
  1. IN76 (List of plans refused)

Voting: For – 4Against – 2Abstained - 3

ITEM NO / 05
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/01116/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / Land R/O 59-61 Cynthia Road, Poole, BH12 3JE
PROPOSALS / Demolish existing garage outbuilding sever land from 59 & 61 Cynthia Road and erect detached bungalow with associated parking and access from Jacqueline Road.
REGISTERED / 2 September, 2014
APPLICANT / Mr & Mrs R Velkoop
AGENT / Wessex Survey and Design Ltd
WARD / Newtown
CASE OFFICER / Darryl Howells

The Application was before theCommittee at the request of the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services because of the history of the Site.

The Site was the subject of a Members’ site visit held on 13 November 2014 which commenced at 12:10pm and concluded at 12:20pm. Councillors Eades, Pawlowski, Brown, Burden, Mrs Butt, Jo Clements, Parker, Mrs Wilson and Wilson were in attendance.

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.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet, and, in particular, details of amended plans received on 11 November 2014 and an additional representation from the Head of Transportation Services.

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

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the Proposal was considered to be out of character with the area and was therefore recommended for refusal.

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

  • The scheme would adversely affect the streetscene
  • Out of keeping with the area
  • Dangerous driveway
  • Nowhere to store refuse/recycling bins

Mrs Foot, Objector expressed her views, details included:

  • There would be a lack of amenity for residents
  • Would affect amenity of existing residents
  • There would be an increase in noise from cars

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

  • The gates that had been added to the scheme would prevent unauthorised access and this had resulted in the deletion of a reason for refusal as there was no longer an issue of highway safety.
  • A scheme at Rosemary road had not been referred to because it was materially different.
  • The driveway was wider at Margaret Mews

A Member stated that the Scheme was too similar to others that had been refused in the area and would like to see an extra reason for refusal. He added that he would not be supporting the Application.

A Member stated that, in his view, the driveway was already a driveway and that he did not see a reason why this could not continue.

A Member stated that whilst he agreed that the driveway should not be an issue, he supported thereason for refusal.

The Chairman explained that he was thankful that he had been able to see refuse collection in action whilst attending the Site for the visit. He added that the driveway had been present for many years and as such had no issue with reason 3 for refusal.

Mrs Diaper and Mrs Foot summed up their views, details included:

  • The driveway was far too narrow
  • Effect on the streetscene
  • Storage of refuse bins

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Refused for the following reasons:

Reasons

1. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
The proposed development will adversely affect the prevailing pattern of development and fail to reinforce the local distinctiveness of bungalows in Jacqueline Road, contrary to Policies PCS05 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (2009).

Informative Notes

1. IN73 (Working with applicants: Refusal)
2. IN75 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Refusal)
3. IN76 (List of Plans Refused)
ITEM NO / 06
APPLICATION NO. / APP/14/00429/P
APPLICATION TYPE / Outline
SITE ADDRESS / 11 and 11a Ravine Road, Poole, BH13 7HS
PROPOSALS / Outline application: Conversion and extension to form 5 flats.
REGISTERED / 14 April, 2014
APPLICANT / STERLING INVESTMENTS (BMTH) LTD
AGENT / THE PLAN PARTNERSHIP
WARD / Canford Cliffs
CONSERVATION AREA / Haven Road
CASE OFFICER / James Larson

The Application was before the Committee at the request of Ward Councillor Mrs Haines.