BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 6 DECEMBER 2012

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

6 DECEMBER 2012

The Meeting commenced at 10:00am and concluded at 4:03pm

Present:

Councillor Eades (Chairman)

Councillor Pawlowski (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Ms Atkinson (substitute for Councillor Woodcock) (until 3pm), Brown, Mrs Dion (substitute for Councillor Burden) (until 12:30pm), Parker, Potter, Mrs Le Poidevin (substitute for Councillor Mrs Clements), Trent and Mrs Wilson

Others in attendance:

Councillors Mrs Haines, Sorton and White

Members of the public present: approximately 14 (am), 19 (pm).

The Team Leader advised members of the public of the domestic arrangements, including the fact that filming and/or recording of the Meeting’s proceedings was not permitted.

PC56.12APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Burden, Mrs Clements and Woodcock.

PC57.12DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests.

Other Non Statutory Interests Members wished to be recorded

Councillors Brown, Eades, Parker, Potter, Pawlowski, Trent and Mrs Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Items No.1.

Councillor Ms Atkinson declared a personal interest in Plans List Item No.1 as a member of her family lived in Blandford Road.

PC58.12MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8 November 2012, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Plans List Item No.1, Page 7, add “Voting: For – Unanimous”

PC59.12PILKINGTON TILES LIMITED, BLANDFORD ROAD, POOLE

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

The Committee adjourned at 12:30pm and reconvened at 2:00pm.

The Team Leader advised members of the public of the domestic arrangements, including the fact that the filming and/or recording of the Meeting’s proceedings was not permitted.

PC60.12DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Parker declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Plans List Item No.3, due to the proximity of his property to the Application site, and consequently, would withdraw from the Meeting for this item.

Other Non Statutory Interests Members wished to be recorded

Councillors Eades and Mrs Le Poidevin had been lobbied on Plans List Item No.2.

Councillors Brown, Eades, Parker, Potter and Trent had been lobbied on Plans List Item No’s 3 and 4.

Councillors Pawlowski and Trent had been lobbied on Plans List Item No.7.

Councillor Pawlowski had been lobbied on Plans List Item No.8.

PC61.12PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

PC62.12SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION

There was no urgent business.

The Chairman used this opportunity to remind Members of the additional Planning Committee arranged for Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 2:00pm at the Civic Centre, Poole.

PC63.12APPEALS RECEIVED AND APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

The Information Report was noted.

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 6 DECEMBER 2012

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO / 1
APPLICATION NO. / APP/11/01246/P
APPLICATION TYPE / Outline
SITE ADDRESS / Pilkingtons Tiles Ltd, Blandford Road, Poole, BH15 4AR
PROPOSALS / Demolition of all existing buildings including no. 28 Blandford Road. Proposed mixed-use redevelopment comprising: 268 dwellings comprising 68no. 1-bedroom flats, 125no. 2-bedroom flats, 2no. 2-bedroom houses, 64no. 3-bedroom houses, 9no. 4-bedroom houses; 880 m2 GEA floorspace for Classes A1 and A3 uses; 11,556m2 GEA floorspace Class B1 Business units; electricity substation; foul water pumping station; construction of new site entrance onto Blandford Road and associated access roads; 436 car parking spaces; cycle parking; public open space areas; and landscaping works. (Outline Application) Amended plans received 30th March 2012 and 6th November 2012
REGISTERED / 8 November, 2011
APPLICANT / Inland Homes Ltd
AGENT / Rippon Development Services
WARD / Hamworthy East
CASE OFFICER / Caroline Palmer

The Application was brought before the Committee as the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services did not consider it prudent to exercise delegated powers due to the significance of the Proposals.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 5 December 2012, which commenced at 1pm and concluded at 2:30pm. Councillors Eades, Pawlowski, Brown, Parker, Potter, Mrs Le Poidevin, Trent and Mrs Wilson were in attendance.

Stephen Thorne, Head of Planning and Regeneration Services, gave a brief introduction and contextual background to the Application.

He stated that the Application was an important Regeneration Site that was part of Poole’s regeneration ambitions. With the opening of the Twin Sails Bridge earlier this year, it had opened up the Hamworthy side of the Backwater Channel for much needed housing and employment opportunities.

The role of the Regeneration Site was to provide development opportunities that secured an enhanced role for the Central Area of Poole, that supported improvements to the local environment, economic growth and social benefits across the Community. He added that by definition, these Sites were envisaged to be different as they were set to deliver the higher densities of residential and mixed use development as part of the Core Strategy. Pilkington’s Site, for example, proposed a mixed use development of 286 homes, restaurants, cafes, shops, plus a significant amount of employment generating floor space.

The Meeting noted that Applications such as the Pilkington’s Site were complex and required a lot of resource to resolve. Part of those complexities revolved around the need to protect Poole Harbour in ensuring that any development opportunities, either on its own or in combination with any other development did not impact adversely upon this protected area. Consequently, the Authority had commissioned a revised Habitation Regulation Assessment that, as a technical document, had provided reassurance that the development, when assessed against the Guidelines, did not impact upon the Harbour.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services continued by outlining the comprehensive public engagement carried out with the local Community by the Applicant. As a result, the Local Planning Authority had only received six letters of representation to all three consultation exercises, which was a positive result for a regeneration initiative.

Members were advised that, given the numerous conflicting interests that the Core Strategy sought to reconcile, it would be difficult to find any proposals of any significance that were wholly in accordance with every relevant policy in the Strategy. Consequently, Members were being asked to make a judgement, bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the Policies which were either complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or not. As a result, this was not an exercise of compliance with each policy, but rather a consideration of how each one contributed to the overall Strategy to delivery of the Vision for Poole and, in turn, weighting them accordingly in terms of their significance and balancing them, in order to arrive at a Planning judgement.

The Chairman thanked the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services for his introduction.

Caroline Palmer, Planning Officer, gave a ste description and referred to the plans that were distributed as a separate addendum to the Plans List and photographs of the Site and surrounding area.

Various images were referred to, including:

  • Master Plan, with outline of existing built coverage
  • Proposed outline of Site coverage
  • Building topology with colour coded usages (at ground floor level)
  • Aerial photography providing Site context
  • Core Strategy regeneration map
  • Plans detailing the proposed Port Link Road and car parking

Reference was made to the list of proposed conditions distributed separately, plus information included in the Addendum Sheet, with particular reference to additional representations from Savills, Natural England, Poole Harbour Commissioners, English Heritage, Dorset County Council, the Environment Agency, Vision for Poole and from local residents.

In addition, Members’ attention was drawn to the proposed amendment to the heads of terms of conditions with regard to an additional Section 106 clause regarding nutrients and the deletion of Condition No.24.

Richard Genge, Planning and Regeneration Manager, gave a brief presentation on the strategic objectives, reference was made to the following:

  • Poole Local Plans 1998 and 2004
  • PBRI – adopted 2004
  • Core Strategy, adopted 2009
  • PCS11

It was noted that the Core Strategy Inspector found the Strategy to be “sound” and noted that the PBRI was “dated” and had not been subject to the rigorous test of an SPD. The Inspector had further noted that Developers wished to see a clear vision and priorities from the Council and in the absence of an up-to-date SPD welcomed the Core Strategy so as to provide some flexibility. The Planning and Regeneration Manager added that revisions to the wording of PCS11 reflected the concerns of the Inspector, and, in particular:

“Individual Site provision must reflect the overall Vision Strategy for the area, though it is recognised that a degree of flexibility within these Sites may be necessary to ensure that the Regeneration Area delivers the required development within the timescale envisaged”.

Subsequently, the PBRI, Volume 2 had been reviewed by a Commission for the Built Environment (CABE) Enabler who found that the principles remained relevant and sound. Whist these documents would in due course be considered as SPDs, they nevertheless remained relevant today. They formed part of the Development Plan and the Council’s “Vision for Poole” and enabled Members to make an informed decision.

The Planning and Regeneration Manager confirmed that all Members had copies of the relevant packs of documents/policies that the Proposals had been assessed against, along with a resumé of the relevant policies.

Members were reminded that regeneration was about:

  • Delivering land use and physical delivery
  • Maximising benefits for residents, in terms of skills, social inclusion, housing, education and community development

As a result, Members were requested to note the strategic need for this part of the Regeneration Site and in turn, Poole as a whole.

The Planning and Regeneration Manager stated that certain levels of mitigation were necessary. The Applicants had recognised this and the wording of the Section 106 Agreement securing payments had been agreed just prior to the Meeting.

Members were reminded that the overall viability of the Scheme was assessed independently and it had been concluded that as of today, zero Affordable Housing provision was justified. The Applicant, however, had offered a contribution of circa £600K towards Affordable Housing, this represented the difference between the contributions already justified and a £2Million contribution fund/package that the Applicants were willing to provide. Council policy, when the Viability Assessment resulted in no Affordable Housing, would normally seek an “Overage Clause” so that at predetermined trigger points, the whole viability of the Scheme could be reassessed and the appropriate sums secured. There was a risk that the sum would not meet the amount currently offered, but equally, should the economic situation improve, there could be significantly more value in the Scheme and therefore the ability to deliver more Affordable Housing Contributions. Ultimately, it was a decision of the Planning Committee to decide whether, if the Application was approved, to choose either the “up front payment” or the “Overage Clause”.

The Presentation was continued with a summary of the nutrients/SPA issues. The Planning and Regeneration Manager stated that overall, the Proposal provided suitable and relevant mitigation to protect both Dorset Heathlands, Poole Harbour SPA and protected wildlife.

Lee Smith, Senior Development Management Officer (Transportation), provided details on the proposed Port Link Road. Particular reference was made to its design, proposed widths, access, phasing and the need to accommodate two-way articulated lorry movements.

Members noted details of the proposed bus routes and new bus stops, parking levels, travel plans, cycle links and paths throughout the Development.

Richard Nicholson, Green Space Development Team Leader, provided Members with details of Policy PCS11 and what levels of on-site amenity space and children’s play areas would need to be provided in order to meet the required standards. It was noted that the Proposals did not meet all the standards in Policy D9.

For the Pilkington Site, the Council would not be looking for on-site provision of:

  • Borough Strategic Park
  • Accessible, natural and semi natural green spaces
  • Playing Pitches
  • Allotments

As a result, the Council would be looking to secure off-site contributions in accordance with the CIL Regulations 2012 and delivering Poole’s infrastructure DPD, paragraphs 2.9 to 2.11 (off-site strategic informative).

In addition, the Developer had proposed on-site provision of:

  • Formal play space
  • Some local parks/amenity green spaces

Some of the “formal play” was proposed in six locations on sites, totalling approximately 600 square metres in area, but as some of the play areas were within home zones, or the Waterfront, the edges of the play areas were blurred and whenfinalised would be larger. The play area by the Blandford Road entrance was outward looking and had the possibility of being enlarged through the development of the adjacent site. The description and layout made it suitable for toddlers and pre-school age children. Local or “doorstep” play had value and at any time would meet approximately 25% of the play needs of the local population. The off-site contribution would be used to enhance the capacity of Hamworthy Park Play Areas in order to meet increased demand.

In terms of amenity green space, two courtyard areas within the flat developments were communal, and the traditional house type areas showed a residential homes zone amenity space. All the houses had private amenity space in the form of rear gardens and that this was a typical pattern of development across Hamworthy. The on-site amenity space, as shown on the Plans, would contribute approximately 20% of the provision and, consequently, off-site contributions would be required.

Warren Lever, Team Manager (Central and Regeneration), continued with the Presentation and referred to a slide that illustrated the overall design concept for the Scheme. From the beginning, the approach was to respond to the contextual street pattern, create permeability, respond to the main Quayside that ran along at the Gallagher’s Site and create a proposed development form that had a sensible perimeter block layout.

The proposed permeability allowed numerous routes across the Site and enabled it to better respond to pedestrian and cycle requirements. It created a workable neighbourhood which set a framework for other Sites in the Regeneration Area.

The Team Manager’s Presentation continued with reference to the following:

  • Active frontages
  • Public realm
  • Massing and home design
  • Quayside blocks
  • Scale of buildings
  • House types and tenures
  • Large rear gardens, street trees and green space planting.

In summary, the Team Manager stated that the Scheme had to deal with some complex competing issues, including the delivery of a Port Link Road, part of the Quayside route and a safe and attractive, well laid out development and, in his professional opinion, the Scheme met all these areas through both a strategic and detailed urban design approach.

Caroline Palmer, Planning Officer, concluded the Officer Presentation and stated that there were shortcomings in the Scheme, namely, the lack of on-site open space and Affordable Housing.

The benefits to regeneration of this area of the Borough would bring forward new housing and employment space and encourage economic growth that would positively create investment to the area and the Town Centre. The Proposal would create a sense of place and an environment that had been designed for the pedestrian and cyclist at its core whilst also allowing functionality for goods vehicles to pass safely. The Proposal would also secure a key element to the flood risk mitigation for Poole Town Centre and the all important Port Link Road.

It was considered that the proposed development would meet the broad aspirations of the Council. The Proposal had been challenged and analysed and was deemed to be deliverable and, if accepted, would initiate the delivery of the Poole Bridge Regeneration Initiative.

Mr Andrew Ramsbottom, Objector, expressed his views, including:

  • Harbour engineer (Poole Harbour Commissioners), Chartered Civil Engineer
  • Concerns/comments were specific to the Port Link Road
  • Poole Harbour Commissioners Masterplan (30 years) had been out for consultation and following stakeholder response was about to be published. The Masterplan was designed to safeguard the Commissioner’s ability to conserve the Harbour by maintaining a viable Port.
  • Road access was fundamental
  • Port Link Road was a once in a generation opportunity to construct the infrastructure necessary to connect Holes Bay Road to the Port
  • Long term doubt regarding the structural integrity of the old Poole Lifting Bridge
  • Concern regarding the Borough’s ability to finance adequate major maintenance, such as the approach spans of the Poole Bridge
  • Port access must be “future proofed”
  • Concern that the old Lifting Bridge would close
  • Disappointed to note the comments by the Borough’s Transportation Services, which were clearly at odds with the necessary infrastructure requirements
  • Quoted from the latest Transportation Services Report
  • The Proposal added at least two unnecessary right-angled bends to the Port Link Road
  • Recently there had been problems with abnormal loads leaving the Port
  • The existing Rigler Road/Blandford Road junction was totally inadequate
  • It would not be difficult to redesign the Port Link Road through the Site to eventually allow access through Sydenhams to the roundabout at the junction of Blandford Road, Bridge Approach and New Quay Road.
  • The Proposal was a clear case of site-specific requirements taking precedence over local infrastructure
  • Poole Harbour Commissioners objected to the Application

Richard Shaw, Objector, expressed his views, including: