Borough of Poole Planning Committee 20 June 2013

BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 JUNE 2013

BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

20 JUNE 2013

The Meeting commenced at 1:00pm and concluded at 4:45pm

Present:

Councillor Eades (Chairman)

Councillor Pawlowski (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Brown, Burden, Mrs Clements, Parker, Potter, Mrs Wilson, Wilson and Woodcock

Others in attendance:

Councillor Mrs Haines

Members of the public present: approximately 33

The Team Leader (Regulatory) 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.

PC 14.13APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence.

PC 15.13DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

Other Non-Statutory Interests Members Wished to be recorded

Councillors Brown, Burden, Mrs Clements, Pawlowski, Potter, Mrs Wilson and Woodcock had been lobbied on Plans List Item 1.

Councillors Burden, Mrs Clements, Eades, Parker, Pawlowski, Potter, Mrs Wilson and Woodcock had been lobbied on Plans List Item 4.

Councillors Burden, Eades, Potter and Mrs Wilson had been lobbied on Plans List Item 6.

Councillor Parker had been lobbied on Agenda Item No.5.

PC 16.13MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Committee, held on 23 May 2013, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chairman.

PC 17.13PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

PC 18.1326 FURZEHILL DRIVE, POOLE, BH14 8QL

Members considered the Application at 2:30pm, following Plans List Item No.1 and the brief adjournment.

The Application had been originally brought before the Committee at the request of Councillor Parker due to local residents’ concerns.

At its Meeting on 18 April 2013, the Planning Committee deferred making a decision to enable Members of the Planning Committee to visit the Application Site.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 20 June 2013, which commenced at 11:40am and concluded at 12:05pm. All Members of the Planning Committee were in attendance.

Emma MacWilliam, Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to Site Plans as appended to the Report and photographs of the Site and the balcony, taken from numerous viewpoints.

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, details of amended Plans and an additional letter of representation.

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

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that the balcony, steps and screening would cause no material harm to the appearance of the street scene or character of the area. In addition, residential amenity would be preserved and, as a result, the Application was recommended for approval.

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

Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak.
Speaking on behalf of his son-in-law who was unable to attend.
Proposals had no adverse affect on the street scene and was well constructed
Balcony was obtrusive and, as a result, his son-in-law felt unable to prune his Bay Tree due to opening up further views.
Due to the height of the balcony, there would be increased noise pollution.
Pleased to see the revised plan detailing obscuration of the steps
Would the glazing be solid or would there be gaps?
Concerned regarding the amount of overlooking
There would be views directly into the lounge and main bedroom
Oblique views into the child’s bedroom
When son-in-law extended his property, he omitted side windows in order to avoid overlooking
Invasion of privacy

Mr and Mrs Keen, Applicants, expressed their views, details included:

Modest balcony that provided a small pleasure in sitting outside
The affect of the balcony had been grossly exaggerated
Neighbours had removed shrubs after construction
Balcony only 5’ 8” wide, not wide enough for a party, just the two of us.
Could not see how a glass/metal screen would be considered obtrusive
Did not object to neighbours’ extension as believed everyone had the right to improve their property

In response to Members’ questions, the Planning Officer stated:

Whilst the drawing showed the glazing as continuous, there maybe small gaps to cater for fixings to the ballastrade/posts etc.
When referring to previous photographs, it appeared that the boundary shrubs were in place in 2010/11.
There was no requirement to remove shrubs for the neighbours’ extension and subsequently, a shed had been erected on that area.

Ward Councillor Parker stated that following visits to both residents, it became clear that there was a neighbour dispute and that, as a result, he ‘red carded’ the Application. He thanked Members for their decision to carryout a Site visit.

A Member stated that following the Site visit, and viewing the amended plans, it seemed that the Applicant had mitigated the majority of the overlooking.

A Member stated that her main concern was the degree of overlooking into the neighbour’s bedroom.

A Member stated that the balcony resulted in a deterioration of privacy and whilst the existing Applicants used the balcony in a quiet manner, there was no guarantee that future users would be so considerate.

A Member stated that he felt the mitigation measures were contrived and the obscure glazing would appear like a glass wall.

The Chairman stated that it was important to visit the Site. He added that the “off-set” layout of houses in the road made matters worse in terms of overlooking. He added that he agreed with the previous comments regarding the glazing solution being “contrived”.

Mr Barlow summed up his views, details included:

Members had identified the issues regarding the Application
If you were a neighbour, would you be happy with the balcony?
Asked Members to protect residents’ privacy

Mr and Mrs Keen summed up their views, details included:

If you lived in our house would you want to look out over our neighbours’ extension?
We did not object when they extended their house
If you work hard you should be able to improve your home.

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

Voting:For – 4Against – 5Abstentions – 1

The Meeting continued by discussing reasons for refusal, details included:

Overlooking to bedroom unacceptable
Mitigation measures were contrived and did not stop overlooking
Bulk and mass of screening was unacceptable
Resultant impact of balcony was unacceptable
Balcony was oppressive

RESOLVED contrary to Officer Recommendation, to refuse Planning Permission for the following reasons:

The proposed development results in material harm by reason of unacceptable overlooking towards the adjacent property. The proposed mitigation of an obscure glazed screen would only partly alleviate the overlooking but in doing so the resultant scale of the obscure glazed screen would dominate the outlook from the neighbouring windows to a harmful degree resulting in an oppressive development and unacceptable building relationship, contrary to policy DM1 of the Site Specific Allocation and Development Management Policies DPD.

Voting:For – 7Against – 2Abstentions – 1

PC19.13PLANNING APPEALS RECEIVED AND PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

The Information Report was noted.

PC20.13PLANNING ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

Members discussed the Planning Enforcement Activity Report and requested that their appreciation and thanks be passed onto the Enforcement Team regarding the positive outcome of the Davey Appeal.

The Information Report was noted.

PC 21.13SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS, IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRENT CONSIDERATION

There was no urgent business.

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 20 JUNE 2013

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO / 1
APPLICATION NO. / APP/13/00271/P
APPLICATION TYPE / Outline
SITE ADDRESS / Land South of Magna Road, West of Wheelers Lane, Poole, BH11 9NB
PROPOSALS / Outline Application for the use of land for employment/industrial uses with associated strategic landscape and infrastructure service route to the Site Control Centre. To be accessed from Magna Road. This Application includes an Environmental Impact Assessment.
REGISTERED / 8 March, 2013
APPLICANT / Joint Applicants -
AGENT / Davies Landscape Architects
WARD / Merley & Bearwood
CASE OFFICER / James Gilfillan

The Planning Application was brought before the Committee due to the scale of the Proposal and at the request of Councillor Mrs Cox due to the concerns of residents and size of the development.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 20 June 2013, which commenced at 10:45am and concluded at 11:15am. All Members of the Planning Committee were in attendance.

Prior to the Case Officer presentation, Nigel Jacobs, Planning Policy and Implementation Manager, provided a brief contextual introduction.

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

Reference was made to the Addendum Sheet and, in particular, representations received from the Head of Planning at Dorset County Council, the Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services and a letter from a member of the public.

The Presentation continued with a summary of the relevant Planning History, Community Consultations, Consultations, representations, Planning Considerations and judgement.

The Senior Planning Officer concluded by stating that, due to the Outline nature of the Application, many issues remained unresolved and, subject to consideration as “Reserved Matters”, these included:

The layout of the Development
The scale of the Development
The appearance of the Development
Access to the Development
Landscape design

The principle of the use of the land for employment purposes had merit and the Scheme would deliver significant investment in the economy of Poole, creating jobs during construction and business/industrial employment thereafter, however, at this time the land was not required to support such investment of growth due to the availability of other sites. In the event a need for such sites could be proven, they would be identified during a review of the Development Plan which would consider the need for this Site to be allocated for employment purposes or not. The Proposal was therefore contrary to Policy PCS30.

The Application had not been supported by an Environmental Statement demonstrating that the Development would not give rise to harm to a European designated site, SPA, RAMSAR, SSSI and SAC directly or with sufficient mitigation measures and would therefore harm existing nature conservation and bio diversity assets and failed to adequately enhance those features. The Proposal was therefore contrary to Policy PCS28, DMO9 and NPPF para 109.

It had not been demonstrated that the Development would be able to deal with on-site flooding, minimising the risk to employees and businesses. The Proposals were therefore contrary to Policy PCS34.

It was recognised that the Applicant had the opportunity to deliver a highly sustainable development and, whilst the presumption in favour of sustainable development was seen as a golden thread running through decision making, it was considered that the Development did not provide an economic role by delivering the right land at the right time, did not provide a social role by providing a high quality environment, affecting the Community’s needs and supported its health, social and cultural wellbeing, or provide an environmental role by contributing to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and improving bio diversity.

The Application was therefore recommended for refusal.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that extended speaking arrangements were in place due to the importance of the Application.

Marion Pope, Objector, expressed her views, details included:

Proposal “flew in the face” of the Core Strategy
Quoted from the Core Strategy
It was a Greenfield Site
The area was “safeguarded land”
Applicants were well aware of the status of the land
No need for the land to be developed
It was unfortunate that the Poole Town Football Club Application was granted permission.
Applicant was trying to claim that a precedent had been set.
There was no indication of a shortage of employment land.
Members should not ignore the Borough of Poole’s own policies.
A Planning Permission would only inflate the land prices
Should not be providing the Applicant with a pecuniary advantage
Local residents were totally against the Application.

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

Severe impact on local families
Designated as a Greenfield Site
Borough of Poole had an obligation not to damage the amenity of residents
Families lived in the area for a reason
Quoted from the Human Rights Act
People’s lives would be blighted
Application lacked robust evidence regarding the lack of employment land elsewhere within the Borough
Quoted from the Natural England Report
Area already experienced traffic pressures at weekends
Families already experienced noise pollution from the football training pitch
No economic case for development
Important to remember that schools and family homes bordered the Site

Carmel Spencer, Objector, expressed her views, details included:

Was a Bearwood resident, lived in King John Avenue
Enjoyed living in the area, especially appreciated the horse paddocks and countryside
A much quieter area of Poole
Residents’ homes and gardens would back onto the Development
Schools, a Cattery, farms and horses were all too close.
Daily noise problems
Changes in landscape would result in the destruction of the countryside
There would be noise and traffic pollution

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

Bearwood through traffic would increase
The design of the exit and entrance arrangements did not meet planning requirements
Change, however, was inevitable, it was just not the correct proposal and it was too early.
Care must be taken regarding local schools and children playing outside.

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

Thanked Members for the opportunity to speak
Application was for Outline approval
Officers had confirmed that the land had been safeguarded for employment use, therefore the principle had been agreed
Quoted from the Inspector’s Report
Lack of other employment sites in the area
Cowling and West (Agents) had confirmed a severe lack of land for employment
Mentioned two large companies, LUSH and Key Equipment who had expressed an interest as there were no other similar sites within the Borough
Shortage of employment land was a severe impediment
1,600 jobs if the land was released
Quoted from the NPPF
Had submitted information that had resolved the Environmental Agency’s objections.
Natural England had submitted late objections, the Applicant was confident that they could be mitigated.

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

Author of the Economic Case Report
Lack of employment land in the area, this had been confirmed by research
Need was greater than supply
Without this development, economic growth would be lost
If no development, companies would relocate outside of area
Cowling and West had confirmed theSite was required

Officers responded to Members’ questions, details included:

In terms of employment land availability, when it came to large sites, the availability was “tight”.
With regard to the Transport Assessment, the impact would be less than 30%
Transport Officers had concerns regarding how the Applicant arrived at some of their figures
The Senior Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the Consultation response received from Dorset County Council as detailed in the Addendum Sheet
The Senior Planning Officer apologised and confirmed that the Applicant had updated the information regarding flooding/surface water, however, the Environment Agency was yet to provide a response.

Ward Councillor Brown expressed his views, details included:

This was a very important Scheme
There had been numerous representations from both sides
Over 200 objections from local residents
Pre-application consultation had been limited
Traffic on the Bearwood Estate was of primary concern
Concerned regarding the loss of the pathway at the end of Wheelers Lane
Concerned regarding Natural England’s objections
Eventually the land maybe required for development
Agreed with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

A Member stated that the economic wellbeing of the Borough was close to all Members’ hearts, however, it was a balance between the Application and quality of life. He added that the policy case for refusal was overwhelming.

A Member stated that there was a large Industrial Estate close to homes in her Ward and the impact was excessively negative.

A Member stated that the Planning Committee faced a “balance of demand”. He added, however, that there appeared to be no good case for the immediate use of the land for employment and that it was not a long time to wait for the outcomes of the Core Strategy Review in 2016.

The Chairman stated that it was important to reflect on the history of the Site and that the only reason why the Application was being discussed was due to the ill-fated A31 link Road. He added that the Applicant had not made a persuasive case and was unconvinced that the land should be released at this stage.

The Objectors summed up their views, details included:

Reminded Members of the Core Strategy
No evidence for the Applicants to back up their argument
Land must be returned to Greenbelt
Land was too close to the school
Heartened by the Members’ remarks

Mr Jobbins, summed up his views, details included:

Mentioned two interested Companies,however, there were more, but for commercial reasons, was not able to quote them
There was considerable demand for the land, why wait to 2016?
Jobs were at stake
It would be sad not to take up this opportunity

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Refused for the following reasons: