Borough of Poole Planning Committee 2111 Februaryapril 2016

BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2111 FEBRUARYAPRIL 2016

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

2111 FEBRUARYAPRIL 2016

The Meeting commenced at 1:001:00pm and concluded at 5:304:28pm

Present:

Councillor Pawlowski (Chairman)

Councillor Parker (Vice Chairman)

Councillors: Ms Atkinson (substitute for Councillor Mrs Dion), Bagwell, Mrs Butt, Burden, Le Poidevin (until 5:15pm), Tomlin and Wilson (until 3:55pm).Butt, Burden (until 4:00pm), Dion (until 3:12pm), Le Poidevin, Pope (Substitute for Councillor Tomlin) and Wilson

Others in Attendance

Councillors Brown, Mrs Haines, Iyengar, Williams, Gabriel, Tindle and Mrs Newell

Councillors Atkinson and Haines

Members of the public present:

Approximately 4734

PC8267.16APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Dion and Parker.

Councillors Bagwell and Tomlin.

PC8368.16DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

Other Non-Statutory Interests Members Wished to be Recorded

Councillors Pawlowski, Mrs Butt, Burden, Tomlin, Le Poidevin and Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Item Numbers 1 and 4.

Councillors Pawlowski, Mrs Butt, Burden and Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Item Number 2.

Councillors Bagwell, Mrs Butt, Le Poidevin and Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Item Number 5.

Councillors Pawlowski, Mrs Butt, Burden and Tomlin had been lobbied on lobbied on Plans List Item Number 6.

Councillors Mrs Butt and Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Item Number 3.

Councillors Pawlowski, Ms Atkinson, Mrs Butt, Burden, Bagwell and Le Poidevin had been lobbied on Plans List Item Number 7.

Councillors Pawlowski, Mrs Butt, Burden, Bagwell, Le Poidevin and Tomlin had been lobbied on Plans List Item Number 9.

Plans List Item Number 11 was before the Committee as the Applicant was a Councillor.

All Councillors had been lobbied on Plans List Item nos. 2 & 5.

Councillors Pawlowski, Parker, Butt, Burden, Dion, Le Poidevin and Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Item nos. 1, 4 and 6.

Councillor Le Poidevin had been lobbied on Plans List Item no. 3.

Councillor Pope informed the Meeting that, as she was a Substitute Member and was not present at the previous Meeting, she would not take part in either the Debate or the Vote for Agenda Item nos. 5 & 6.

PC8469.16MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 January 17 March 2016, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

PC70.16540 BLANDFORD ROAD, POOLE

Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, reminded Members that Planning Application APP/15/01306/F, 540 Blandford Road, was reported to Committee on 14 January 2016 with a recommendation to refuse, however, Members resolved to defer the Item in order that Officers explore securing a Section 106 Agreement, ensuring that the proposed flats would remain as rented properties in order to potentially allow reduced car parking provision to be acceptable.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a site description and referred to the 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, the deletion of Paragraph 3.9 with a replacement, as detailed in the Addendum Sheet.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that, whilst the Section 106 Agreement resolved three out of the four reasons for refusal, the principle of flatted development in that location remained contrary to adopted planning policies for the reasons as set out in the Report, attached at Appendix A. It was therefore recommended that Planning Permission be refused solely for reason no. 2, as set out in the Case Officer’s Report.

The Chairman summed up by stating that Members were supportive of the Scheme when it was first presented to Committee, and that the Section 106 Agreement had resolved the issues regarding parking.

N McKeon, Applicant, summed up his views, details included:

Property surrounded by flatted development

Property would benefit from the development

Had entered into a Section 106 Agreement

On being put to the Vote, the Officer’s recommendation to refuse was LOST.

For – 0Against – 7Abstentions – 1

Members continued by discussing conditions for Approval, details included:

Three-year time limit

Revised Site plans

Parking remained unallocated

RESOLVED to grant Planning Permission, subject to S106 Agreement and the following conditions:

1. 3 year timescale

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a revised car parking plan illustrating 2 car parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be made available and retained for that purpose, and use of all residents and visitors, and shall not become the freehold or leasehold of a private resident.

3. Plan Listings

Add Informative Notes

1. IN72

In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Borough of Poole (BoP) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. BoP work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

- offering a pre-application advice service, and

- advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions.

- in this case the applicant was advised of issues after the initial site visit

- in this case the applicant was provided with pre-application advice and this was reflected in the proposals

- in this case the applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit amendments to the scheme which addressed issues that had been identified

- the application was considered and approved without delay

2. IN74

Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations

The proposed development referred to in this planning permission is a chargeable development liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL Regulations (amended).

In accordance with CIL Regulation 65, Borough of Poole will issue a Liability Notice in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission as soon as practicable after the day on which planning permission first permits development. The Liability Notice will confirm the chargeable amount for the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission and will be calculated by Borough of Poole in accordance with CIL Regulation 40 (amended) and in respect of the relevant CIL rates set out in the adopted Borough of Poole Charging Schedule. Please note that the chargeable amount payable in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission is a local land charge.

For information purposes, Borough of Poole reserves the right to issue a Liability Notice in respect of chargeable development as soon as is practicable following the grant of planning permission, but before the time on which that planning permission first permits development (the definition of when planning permission first permits development for the purposes of CIL is set out in CIL Regulation 8). However, any earlier Liability Notice issued by Borough of Poole in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission ceases to have effect at the point a subsequent (by date) Liability Notice in respect of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission is issued by Borough of Poole.

Please be aware that failure to pay CIL in accordance with the CIL Regulations and Council’s payment procedure upon commencement of the chargeable development referred to in this planning permission may result in the Council imposing surcharges and taking enforcement action. Further details on the Council’s CIL process including the assuming, withdrawing and transferring liability to pay CIL, claiming relief, the payment procedure, consequences of not paying CIL in accordance with the payment procedure and appeals can be found on the Borough of Poole website:

For – 7Against – 0Abstentions – 1

PC71.16302 – 304 SANDBANKS ROAD, POOLE

James Gilfillan, Senior Planning Officer, reminded Members that at the Meeting of the Planning Committee on 14 January 2016, Members deferred making a decision on Planning Application APBP/15/01491/F to enable Officers to seek clarification regarding the accuracy of the submitted plans.

It was noted that the architects for the Scheme had subsequently explained that the apparent discrepancy arose from the use of different datum points by two different architects on the respective Schemes, resulting in different measurements for the ground levels, finished floor levels and ridge heights of the two neighbouring Schemes.

The Plans had now been updated to use the same datum points, and they could now be relied upon as accurately representing the relationship of the proposed development to the adjoining site.

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted on the screen the revised streetscene plans.

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the recommendation remained that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out at Appendix A to the Report and the Addendum Sheet at Appendix B, and subject to the updated Condition no. 2 that reflected updated plan reference numbers.

RESOLVED to grant Planning Permission subject to:

1. A contribution of £1,420.00 (plus admin fee) towards mitigating the harm to the Dorset Heathlands SPA and SSSI in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Framework SPD 2015 , Policies PCS28, PCS 36 and PCS37 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, Policy DM9 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and Policies IN1 and IN2 of the Delivering Poole's Infrastructure DPD 2012.

2. A contribution of £65,688.00 (plus admin fee) towards off-site provision of Affordable Housing provision in accordance with Policies PCS06 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, Policy IN2(E) of the Delivering Poole's Infrastructure DPD 2012 and Affordable Housing SPD 2011

Informative Notes

For – 6Against – 1Abstentions – 1

PC72.16OBJECTION TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDER – NORTH WEST CORNER OF THE FORMER POWER STATION SITE

Adam Cooper, Arboricultural Officer, presented a report advising Members that one objection had been received in respect of Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 15/00003, after which numerous representations on behalf of the objecting party had been received.

The Arboricultural Officer continued by summarising the trees to which the TPO related, and the background information to the actual Order.

The Presentation continued by detailing the responses to the objections made.

In conclusion, the Arboricultural Officer stated that the Council had followed the correct procedures as detailed in the relevant guidance of the Act. The Tree Preservation Order had been made in accordance with the Blue Book and the TCPA. The suitability and amenity contribution of the trees had been assessed by a competent arboriculturalist, and determined to be appropriate.

Chris Alder, Objector, expressed his views, details included:

Consultant representing Gallagher Estates

Objected on the following grounds

oSignificant constraints on Site already

oSub-station impacted on Site

oFlood defence works would require the raising of ground levels resulting in severe implications for the trees

oContradiction between tree protection and development

oWanted to work together with Planning and Regeneration Services

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

Any forthcoming Planning Applications would need to deal with the Tree Preservation Orders as constraints to the Site

The raising of ground levels were not before Members to consider

A Member stated that the Committee should only consider what was before them and therefore supported the Case Officer’s Report.

The Chairman stated that he had sympathy with the Objector and that he could not understand why further obstacles were being put in the way of possible developers of the Borough of Poole’s Regeneration Sites.

The Objector did not take up the opportunity to sum up his views.

RESOLVED to confirm TPO/00003 without modification.

For – 4Against – 3Abstentions – 1

PC8573.16PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

PC8674.16PLANNING APPEALS RECEIVED AND PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

The Information Report was noted.

PC8775.16SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION

In accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman allowed consideration of the following Items as a decision was required before the next scheduled Meeting of the Planning Committee.

SA1 Exclusion of Public and Press

RESOLVED that, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the Meeting for the following Item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act, as the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

SA2 74 Parkstone Heights, Poole

Richard Genge, Planning and Regeneration Manager, introduced the confidential Report regarding the Council’s defence at the forthcoming Inquiry regarding the above Application.

RESOLVED that Members confirm the advice of Officers, as set out in the Confidential Report.

There was no other business.

CHAIRMAN

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

21 APRIL11 FEBRUARY 2016

The Application was before Committee because of the policy issues raised.

Eleanor Godesar, 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 pre-application advice, consultations, representations, planning considerations and judgment.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that both PCS7 and PCS25 sought to resist development which would lead to the loss of premises used as a care home. Whilst the submitted Planning Statement, Care Home Analysis (Savills, 24 March 2015), and Addendum (Savills 7 January 2016) demonstrated that the future use of the Site and premises would be commercially unviable, the existing Care Home was still in operation and this indicated that it was currently viable. Furthermore, no evidence had been provided which demonstrated that the viability of the Care Home had been tested through marketing the Care Home for sale, nor that the premises could not be utilised for community purposes. In these circumstances, the re-development of the Application Site in the manner proposed would lead to the unacceptable loss of a care home.

Laurie Marlow, Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

Careful design

Neatly fitted into the Site

No design issues

Pre-application advice raised no concerns

Based on that advice, submitted Application

Quoted PCS7

Not capable of being run as a viable care home

Referred to Report by Savills

Building was far too small

Only 14 bedrooms, no en-suites

No lifts

To be viable, needed to be much larger

Family-run at present

Family worked 150 hours per week, not sustainable

Family wanted to retire

The only issue was that it had not been marketed

It did accord with PCS7

Must rely on the expert’s opinion – Savills

Requested that Members grant Planning Permission

In the absence of Ward Councillor Mrs Haines, a brief statement was read out, details included:

Supported Case Officer’s Recommendation

Still in operation

No evidence to suggest that it was unviable

Poole had an aging population

Increased demand for care home places

Referred to Ormonde Home decision, which had been marketed for a year

Within Planning Policy to resist such development

Quoted PCS7 and PCS25

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

It was difficult to speculate the viability of the Rest Home, however marketing it would have been a proper test

There was no minimum stated number of care home spaces per business

A Member stated that Social Services had advised that 55 bed spaces was the threshold for a viable rest home. He added that it was important to take account of the current low number of bedrooms when making a decision.

A Member stated that it seemed the current Planning Guidance was out-of-date as it was hard to see how such a small care home would be viable.

A Member stated that the Savills Report made it clear that the Care Home was not viable.

A Member stated that whether or not a care home was viable was due to the quality of care, and not necessarily the number of rooms.

The Chairman stated that it was perverse to suggest that a care home must close due to bankruptcy before it failed the viability test.

Laurie Marlow summed up his views, details included:

Care Home only in operation due to the number of hours worked by its owners

14 rooms, but the bedrooms on the first floor not occupied due to having no lift

Quoted PCS7 and the fact that there was no mention that marketing was required to test viability

On being put to the vote, the Officer Recommendation to refuse was LOST.

For – 0Against – 8Abstentions – 0

Members continued by discussing possible conditions if Planning Permission was granted, including:

Amended Plans

Materials

3-years timescale

Landscaping

Obscure glazing

Arboricultural Method Statement

Parking details

Drainage

Screening to balconies

Restriction of use of flat roof, other than for maintenance