Borough of Poole Planning Committee 26 January 2012

BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 26 JANUARY 2012

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

26 JANUARY 2012

The Meeting commenced at 2:00pm and concluded at 3:53pm.

Members present:

Councillor Eades (Chairman)

Councillor Pawlowski (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Burden, Brown, Mrs Clements, Potter, Parker, Trent, Mrs C Wilson and Woodcock.

Others in attendance

Councillors Mrs Le Poidevin and Rampton

Members of the public present: approximately 15

PC62.12APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence.

PC63.12DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

All Members declared a personal interest in Plans List Item No.4, 11 Crawshaw Road, having received written and/or verbal representations.

Councillor Burden declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Plans List Item No.1 , 42 Sopers Lane, Poole, as he lived directly opposite the Application Site. Councillor Burden informed Members that he would leave the Meeting for this item.

Councillor Parker declared a personal interest in Plans List Item No.1, 42 Sopers Lane, having received written and/or verbal representations.

PC64.12MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Committee dated 8 December 2011, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

PC65.12REVISED ADVICE ON PREDISPOSTION AND PREDETERMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 25 OF THE LOCALISM ACT

Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, presented a briefing paper which provided advice to Members on Predisposition and Predetermination in the light of Section 25 of the Localism Act.

The Meeting was informed that Members had attended a Seminar on the Localism Act on 17 January 2012 and a lunchtime training session for Planning Committee Members on Predisposition and Predetermination on 26 January 2012.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services summarised the background to the Briefing Paper, including the current guidelines on Predisposition and Predetermination. He continued by outlining the new provisions in the Localism Act and the resultant advice regarding Predetermination. Members noted that the sensible advice was to exercise a degree of care if a Member was placed in a situation where he or she had strong views about a matter and were also asked to exercise judgement. There may still be circumstances where it was more appropriate for a Member to stand aside and to campaign strongly for a particular outcome based on a position of not actually taking the decision.

The Chairman stated that both Applicants and Objectors had the right to expect that a Planning Application be determined in a fair and equitable manner, and that he much preferred the existing guidelines on Predetermination.

Members discussed the advice contained in the Head of Legal and Democratic Services’ paper and agreed with the comments made by the Chairman.

RESOLVED that Members note the advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services as contained in the Briefing Paper and that the Committee be kept up to date on any emerging case law regarding Predisposition and Predetermination.

Voting:Unanimous

PC66.12SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION

The Chairman reminded Members that the three month trial period of extended speaking arrangements for Objectors and Applicants had finished.

Members joined the Chairman in agreeing that the trial had been a success and that as a result, arrangements should be put in place to amend the Council’s Constitution to reflect the amendments.

RESOLVED

(a)That the Planning Committee recommends to the Council’s Efficiency and Effectiveness Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to full Council, that the speaking times for Objectors and Applicants, as set out in the Constitution, be amended as follows:

Applicants - four minute speaking time plus one minute summing up
Objectors - four minute speaking time plus one minute summing up

(b)That the temporary speaking arrangements of 4 minutes each side, plus one minute to sum up, be continued until consideration is given to amending the Constitution.

PC67.12PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 26 JANUARY 2012

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO / 01
APPLICATION NO. / APP/11/01212/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 42 Sopers Lane, Poole, BH17 7ES
PROPOSALS / Side extension to create new 2 bed dwelling at 42 Sopers Lane with access off French Road. (Revised scheme) (amended by Plans received 18 November 2011).
REGISTERED / 26 October, 2011
APPLICANT / Mr Ellis
WARD / Creekmoor
CASE OFFICER / James Larson

Due to the declared prejudicial interest Councillor Burden left the Meeting.

The Application was brought before the Committee due to the proximity of the Site to the house of a Councillor.

James Larson, Planning Officer, gave a Site description and referred to the SitePlans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

The Architect’s Plans detailing the various elevations of the Proposal were considered.

A summary of the relevant planning history, presentations, planning considerations and judgement was noted.

The Planning Officer stated that whilst the Proposals provided sufficient parking, turning and access, and were unlikely to adversely affect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining properties, it was considered that the Scheme would fail to contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Ward Councillor Rampton, expressed his views, including:

Previous reasons for refusal had been addressed
The Proposal had no adverse affect on Sopers Lane
The Proposal improved the appearance of French Road
There were no objections from neighbours
Similar development had been approved in the area
Proposal was on a huge corner site
The Site was close to local amenities
Transportation Services had not raised any objections
It would be difficult to defend not approving the Application.

A Member stated that he clearly remembered the previous Application and that at the Meeting Members had stated that if it had been only one property it would have been acceptable. He added that he had no problem with the Proposal.

A Member stated that he felt the Proposal had an adverse impact on the spacious feel of the area and that the Proposal was in front of the building line in French Road.

The Chairman stated that he had sympathy with the views expressed by Ward Councillor Rampton, however, he felt that the Proposal was “misshapen” and not attractive.

In response to a request from a Councillor, the Planning Officer highlighted the garaging/parking spaces on the Plan.

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

Voting: for – 4Against – 5Abstentions – 0

Members continued by discussing reasons for approval. It was felt by Members that the Proposal fitted into the context and character of the existing street scene. The loss of the gap to the side of the existing building would not lead to a loss of openness and spaciousness in the context of the street. The Proposal improved upon the previous submission and was no longer contrary to Policies PCS5 and PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy.

Conditions to be applied to the approved Application should include:

Standard Conditions
Landscaping to include boundary treatment
Materials
Access and parking
Contributions (if applicable)

RESOLVED, contrary to Officer recommendation, to Grant Planning Permission with the final reasons and conditions delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services, reflecting the comments as minuted.

Voting:For – 5Against – 4Abstentions – 0

Note: Councillor Burden returned to the Meeting.

______

ITEM NO / 02
APPLICATION NO. / APP/11/01186/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 33 Bingham Avenue, Poole, BH14 8ND
PROPOSALS / Demolition of the rear of the existing semi-detached house and garage and the construction of a new two storey extension to the rear of the property with attached garage (Additional plans received 21/9/11)
REGISTERED / 12 September, 2011
APPLICANT / Mr McFetrich
AGENT / David James Architects LLP
WARD / Penn Hill
CASE OFFICER / Julie Shearing

The Application was brought before the Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Dion.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ SiteVisit on 26 January 2012, which commenced at 12:15pm and concluded at 12:40pm. Councillors Eades, Pawlowski, Burden, Brown, Mrs Clements, Parker, Potter and Mrs C Wilson were in attendance.

Hazel Brushett, Senior Planning Officer, gave a Site description and referred to the SitePlans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area. The Architect’s Plans detailing the various elevations of the Proposals were considered.

A summary of the relevant planning history, representations, planning considerations and judgement was noted.

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer, stated that the Proposal failed to enhance or better reveal the significance of the Locally Listed Building or the character of the area due to its design, mass and bulk. In addition, the Proposal was considered to have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of No.37A Bingham Avenue, due to its mass, bulk and depth.

Mr McFetrich, Applicant, expressed his views, including:

Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak
The Proposal was to rebuild an existing extension
Had lived in the property since 1977
The Property built in 1906 and had been extended to provide maid’s quarters a couple of years later.
The quality of the existing extension was unsatisfactory by today’s standards.
The extension had low ceilings, poor insulation, narrow steps.
Opportunity had now presented itself to rebuild the extension
The previous extension not suitable for his grandchildren to stay
He would ensure that the new extension would be in keeping with the original house
The extension would have matching bricks, a hipped, tiled roof, easy access to the garden, an improved layout and would make better use of the plot.
Had taken great care in speaking to his neighbour at No.31 Bingham Avenue, and they were happy with the Proposals.
The Proposal would have very little effect on the street scene.

In response to a request for information from a Member, Officers highlighted on the Plan, the relationship of the proposed extension compared with the existing extension. The proposed extension was between 2 metres and 2.5 metres deeper than the existing structure.

As the two Applications on the Plans List were exactly the same and included the extensions at the rear of 33 and 35 Bingham Avenue, Members addressed their remarks to the entire scheme.

A Member stated that he did not have a problem with the depth of the Proposals into the plot, however, his main concern was the vicinity of the extension of 35 Bingham Avenue to that of 37A Bingham Avenue, at the side of the plot. He added that, in his opinion, the Proposal was unacceptable.

A Member stated that he was unable to agree with the Officer’s view that the Proposal had a significant effect on the street scene. When viewed from the front, it was difficult to see the extension, and when approaching the property on foot, there was only an oblique view of the rear extension.

Ward Councillor Parker stated that his main concern was for the neighbours at 37A Bingham Avenue, who had a small garden and as a result, the Proposals would have a significant impact on their amenity. He added that, he did not have a problem with the extension at the rear of No.33 Bingham Avenue, however, the extension to No.35 was inappropriate, and as it was an Application concerning both properties, he would have no option but to agree with the Officer recommendation to refuse.

Mr McFetrich summed up his views, including:

Had no intentions to remove hedge/shrubbery from its current situation.
The street scene would not be affected by the Proposal
No property would be able to view the Proposal from the rear.

RESOLVED that this application be Refuse for the following reasons:

1. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
The proposals by reason of their scale, mass, bulk and design will be detrimental to the streetscene, the character of the area and the Locally Listed Buildings of 33 and 35 Bingham Avenue. The proposals are therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (Adopted February 2009) and Planning Policy Statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).
2. RR000 (Non Standard Reason)
The proposals will have an adverse impact on the residential amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of No 37A Bingham Avenue due to their mass, bulk, scale and depth, having an overbearing and dominant relationship to that property, which is further exacerbated by the change in levels at 37A, and is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy H12 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration Adopted 2004 (as amended by Secretary of State Direction September 2007).

Voting:For – 6Against – 3Abstentions - 1

______

ITEM NO / 03
APPLICATION NO. / APP/11/01187/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 35 Bingham Avenue, Poole, BH14 8ND
PROPOSALS / Demolition of the rear of the existing semi-detached house and garage and the construction of a new two storey extension to the rear of the property and detached garage.
REGISTERED / 12 September, 2011
APPLICANT / Mr Martin
AGENT / David James Architects LLP
WARD / Penn Hill
CASE OFFICER / Julie Shearing

The Application was brought before the Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Dion.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site Visit on 26 January 2012, which commenced at 12:15pm and concluded at 12:40pm. Councillors Eades, Pawlowski, Burden, Brown, Mrs Clements, Parker, Potter and Mrs C Wilson were in attendance.

Hazel Brushett, Senior Planning Officer, stated that the presentation regarding the previous Application remained the same for this Application.

Mr Hayes, Objector, expressed his views, including:

Initially, was informed by the Applicant that his intention was for a minor extension, this had now changed, with the building being very close to his new property.
The Proposal would result in severe overshadowing
Corner of extension would be only 2 metres from his rear boundary, resulting in a loss of light and amenity
Architect’s drawing did not show his rear boundary, this was for a reason
Design was out of keeping with the area.
The Proposal would adversely affect the “rhythm” of the road
A more sympathetic and smaller Proposal would be acceptable.

Mr Martin, Applicant, expressed his views, including:

37A Bingham Avenue had only been built a couple of years ago.
Not his fault that the property had a small rear garden.
His property had a 100 foot rear garden.
If 37A had not been recently built, Officers would not have a problem with the Proposals before the Committee today.
Glass doors at the rear of the Property, were in keeping with modern day living.
Glass doors should not be a consideration as they could not be seen from the street.

Ward Councillor Parker stated that he had nothing further to add to his previous comments.

RESOLVEDthat this application be Refuse for the following reasons:

Voting:For – 7Against – 2Abstentions - 1

______

ITEM NO / 04
APPLICATION NO. / APP/11/01408/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Householder
SITE ADDRESS / 11 Crawshaw Road, Poole, BH14 8QZ
PROPOSALS / Removal of existing roof. Construct new roof at 40° pitch extending over existing garage. New first floor accommodation. Internal refurbishment. New sliding doors to rear elevation.(Revised scheme)
REGISTERED / 29 October, 2011
APPLICANT / Mrs Robinson
AGENT / rbstudio architects
WARD / Penn Hill
CASE OFFICER / James Larson

The Application was brought before the Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Stribley, due to concerns of local residents.

James Larson, Planning Officer, gave a Site description and referred to the SitePlans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

Architect’s Plan, detailing the various elevations of the Proposals were considered.

Reference was made to the Arboricultural Officer’s comments contained in the late items Addendum Sheet.

A summary of the relevant planning history, representations, planning considerations and judgement was noted.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that, overall, it was considered that the Proposals would integrate with the existing building, contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area, preserve neighbouring privacy and amenity, provide adequate outside parking and not harm protected trees.

Ms McNulty, Agent for the Objectors, expressed her views, including:

Represented owners of properties affected by the Proposal
Neighbours would suffer loss of amenity
The Proposals were out of keeping, not similar to other properties in the cul-de-sac
Habitable rooms in Objector’s properties were at the rear of the property and would be adversely affected
No.10’s garden was at the front and side of the property and would be affected by the increase in height of the roof
No.11 was one metre from the boundary of No.10.
Roof height would be overbearing
If approved, could set an unwelcome precedent
If approved, would send out a message that “outlook was not a concern”
Contrary to Policies H12 and PCS23

Mr Robinson, Applicant, expressed his views, including:

Lived in property for the last 6 years
Previous Application was withdrawn in order to take into account concerns of neighbours
New design had a lower pitched roof
First floor accommodation was designed so that there would be no overlooking
Referred to Sun Path Analysis document that detailed that there was very little difference between the existing and proposed roof in terms of shadowing.
Many properties in the area had similar extensions

In response to a question by a Member, the Planning Officer informed the Meeting that the difference in roof height between the existing and proposed roof was two metres.