PLANNING COMMITTEE
Thursday 25 September 2003
The meeting commenced at 10.30a.m. and finished at 2.45p.m.
Present: Members of Committee
Councillor Smith (Chairman)
Councillors Allen, Belcham, Mrs Deas, Eades, Gillard, Mrs Hillman, Leverett (substituting for Councillor Mrs Stribley), Trent, Wilson and White (substituting for Councillor Parker)
Also attending:
Councillors Collier, Mrs Hives, Meachin and Woodcock
Members of the public present at the meeting: 100 approximately
1. MINUTES
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 28 August 2003 be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following personal interests were declared:
Councillor Trent in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – Items E1, E2, E5, E8 as having been lobbied and by letter. In respect of planning application W2 referred to site in election leaflet. Therefore, would not take part in debate or vote on application.
Councillor Wilson in respect of M.4 - Planning Applications – Items E1, E2 and E6 as having been lobbied and received written representations and Member of White’s Pit Residents Committee.
Councillor Belcham in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – Items E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 and W2 as having received written representations.
Councillor Mrs Deas in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – Items E1, E2 and E8 as having been lobbied.
Councillor Gillard in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – Items E1 and W2 as having been lobbied.
Councillor Mrs Hillman in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – Items E1, E8, W1 as having been lobbied.
Councillor Smith in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – E1, E2, E7, E8 and W2 as having been lobbied.
Councillor Leverett in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – E1, E2 and W2 as having been lobbied.
Councillor White in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – E1 and E2 as having been lobbied.
Councillor Allen in respect of M.3 and M.4 – Planning Applications – E1, E2 and W2 as having been lobbied and received representations and E3, E4 and E5 acquaintance of applicants.
Councillor Eades in respect of M.4 – Planning Applications – E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E8 and W2 as having been lobbied.
The following prejudicial interest was declared:
Councillor Mrs Hillman in respect of M.4 – Planning application W2 –as owner of a food outlet in the area.
3. SITE VISIT – 18 HARCOMBE CLOSE, CANFORD HEATH
The Committee had visited the site prior to the meeting.
The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning Design and Control and Services on this application that had been “red carded” by Councillor Mrs Moore because of its impact on the neighbouring amenity.
Members considered that having visited the site they supported the officers recommendation to grant retrospective planning permission.
AGREED to grant permission.
4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Committee considered the applications set out in Schedule I to these minutes and dealt with them as indicated therein.
5. SITE VISIT - 68 TWEMLOW AVENUE, POOLE
The Committee had visited the site prior to the meeting.
The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning Design and Control Services that had emphasised that the recent Appeal decision on this site appeared to give the Council little option but to approve the application having regard to the advice in Circular 8/93, which states that Local Planning Authorities that fail to heed previous Appeal Decisions when there had been no change in circumstances would be acting unreasonably and would be vulnerable to an award of costs against them.
The case officer reported that a letter from the Dorset Garden Trust supporting the residents’ objection to the application had been received.
Mr Montgomery, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application stating that the applicants had complied with the comments made by the Inspector relating to the Arboricultural Impact Statement and clarification over a staircase detail and foundation detail of the proposed boundary wall to the site.
Mrs M Moir spoke on behalf of the local residents who were strongly opposed to the application and encouraged the Committee to refuse the application as they had done previously.
Councillors Collier and Woodcock, Ward Councillors, spoke in support of the residents’ objection to the application emphasising the precedent it would set for a similar type of development in that area to the detriment of the Conservation Area. Councillor Leverett stated that he was opposed to the principle of development because of the effect it would have on Poole Park and asked the Council’s Solicitor for advice on how the Committee stood in relation to the Inspector’s appeal decision and the consequences for the Council if it refused the application.
The Council’s Head of Legal Services replied that the Committee was bound to take into account the Inspector’s appeal decision and the advice of the Head of Planning Design and Control Services that there was a significant risk that costs would be awarded to the applicant by any future Inspector hearing an appeal.
Members were inclined to refuse the application and sought the advice of the Head of Planning Design and Control Services for reasons to refuse the application. In reply the Head of Planning Design and Control Services stated that all the key issues and matters of policy had been considered during the earlier appeal and, although the Inspector had dismissed the appeal, her reasons for doing so were limited to relatively minor matters which had been addressed by the applicant in the revised submission. Therefore, in his opinion, there were no reasons to refuse the application and there would be little chance of success on appeal if the Committee did refuse the application. Also it was likely that costs would be awarded against the Council.
A Member enquired that because it was a new Committee considering the application following the election, and they were also of the opinion that it should be refused, would this help the Council’s case?
The Head of Planning Design and Control Services replied that the Committee made the decision as the Local Planning Authority and it made no difference that the membership of the Committee was made up of new Members. Another Member enquired of the likely costs that could arise if the appeal was lost. The officers replied that the award of costs to the applicant depended on the costs incurred. The likely cost could range between £30,000 and £50,000 but, should the applicant be successful in pursuing costs for interest on capital tied up in the site as a consequence of a further refusal, those figures could easily double. Also the Council’s costs of employing Planning Consultants to represent the Council would need to be factored in because the Planning Officers that had dealt with the application would not be able to represent the Council. This was because they had recommended approval of the application and had given clear advice based on the recent appeal decision letter which compromised them professionally.
AGREED that the application be refused for the following reasons:
(a) H1 – (i) (iii)
(b) H11 – (iii) (iv)
(c) BE15
(d) T17
(e) NE27
(f) Precedent
(g) L21
N.B. The Council’s Head of Legal Services assured the Committee that the Council would robustly and professionally defend any appeal before an Inspector.
6. REPORTS SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
(a) Plot 2, adjacent to 29 St. Osmund’s Road and 4 Middleton Road – Stop/Enforcement Notice
(b) Appeal Decisions
(c) Appeals Lodged
CHAIRMAN
SCHEDULE 1
Item No: E2
Case Officer: Mr D Jobbins
Site: 68 Twemlow Avenue, Poole, Dorset, BH14 8AN
Application No: 03/11908/014/U
Applicant: Primetower Properties Ltd
Development: Conservation Area Application to demolish the existing dwelling (revised scheme) as amended by plans received 15.08.03.
Ward: D 040 Parkstone
Written and oral representations noted.
See Minute 5 in respect of application no. 03/119080/013f.
Refused for the following reason:
In the absence of a satisfactory approved scheme for redevelopment it would not be appropriate to see the existing property demolished and the site left vacant given its key location close to one of the formal entrances to Poole Park, which is both part of a Conservation Area and a park identified on English Heritage’s Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.
______
Item No: E3
Case Officer: Mr S Fox-Adams
Site: Site Control Centre, South of Magna Road, Wimborne, Dorset
Application No: 03/31392/009/Y
Agent: T E Bleszynski Woodlands Manor Estates White House Magna Road Wimborne Dorset BH21 3AP
Applicant: W H White Plc
Development: Additional use for a temporary period of 5 years to approved waste reception/processing building 'B' granted permission under 31392/6/Y on 9.1.02 for construction waste recycling relocation from Whites Pit.
Ward: P 160 Merley & Bearwood
Written representations noted.
Granted subject to the following conditions:
1 - This permission shall expire no later than 5 years from the date of this permission or if the use is discontinued before this date whichever is the sooner, by which date the use shall have been discontinued, any associated buildings or other structures shall have been removed from the land, and the land restored to its previous authorised state as agricultural land in all respects.
2 - The use hereby permitted shall not operate and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site otherwise than between 7:00 - 18:00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 7:00 - 13:00 on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays, Bank and other national Public Holidays.
3 - No materials shall not be stacked or deposited to a height exceeding 10 metres in the area specified on the approved plan.
4 - Details for a scheme of sound attenuation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The scheme as approved shall be implemented and thereafter maintained and retained.
5 - There shall be no direct retail sale of the recovered waste from this site.
6 - Before any development commences on site details of a system dealing with emission of smells generated by the use shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once agreed the scheme shall be implemented and operational before the permitted use commences and thereafter maintained.
7 - There shall be no vehicular egress or access to the site, other than employees cars, from Magna Road.
8 – The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access road approved under planning permission 03/31392/011/Y dated 29.09.03 has been constructed and the use of the road to be removed under planning permission 03/31392/011/Y has been discontinued.
______
Item No: E4
Case Officer: Mr S Fox-Adams
Site: Site Control Centre, South of Magna Road, Wimborne, Dorset
Application No: 03/31392/010/Y
Agent: T E Bleszynski Woodlands Manor Estates White House Magna Road Wimborne Dorset BH21 3AP
Applicant: W H White Plc
Development: Relief of Condition 14 of Planning Permission 31392/6/Y granted 9.1.02 to continue the use of the control centre administration building for a period of 10 years (ie until 25.09.2013).
Ward: P 160 Merley & Bearwood
Written representations noted.
Granted subject to the following condition:
1 - This permission shall expire no later than 10 years from the date of this permission or if the use is discontinued before this date whichever is the sooner, by which date the building shall have been removed from the land.
Item No: E5
Case Officer: Mr S Fox-Adams
Site: Whites Pit Landfill Site & Site Control Centre, South of Magna Road, Wimborne, Dorset
Application No: 03/31392/011/Y
Agent: T E Bleszynski Woodlands Manor Estates White House Magna Road Wimborne Dorset BH21 3AP
Applicant: W H White Plc
Development: Alteration to existing access between Whites Pit and the site control centre.
Ward: P 160 Merley & Bearwood
Written representations noted.
Granted subject to the following conditions:
1 - No development shall take place until proposals for the landscaping of the site have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include provision for landscape planting, the retention and protection of existing trees and other site features, walls, fencing and other means of enclosure and any changes in levels.
Upon approval:
a) the approved scheme shall be fully implemented with new planting carried out in the planting season October to March inclusive following occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner, or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority;
b) all planting shall be carried out in accordance with British Standards, including regard for plant storage and ground conditions at the time of planting;
c) the scheme shall be properly maintained for a period of 5 years and any plants (including those retained as part of the scheme which die, are removed or become damaged or diseased within this period shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and the same species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation: and
d) the whole scheme shall be subsequently retained.
Item No: E6
Case Officer: Mr S Llewellyn
Site: 18 Springfield Crescent, Poole, Dorset, BH14 0LL
Application No: 03/07737/005/F
Agent: Peter Wadey 22 Durrant Road Parkstone Poole Dorset BH14 8TP
Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Wright
Development: Alterations and extension to roof to create rooms in the roof space with the provision of Velux windows and formation of a balcony.
Ward: D 040 Parkstone
Written and oral representations noted.
Granted subject to the following condition:
Councillor Leverett on behalf of Councillor Mrs Stribley, objected to the application on the grounds that it would result in a loss of amenity to the neighbours.
Members considered that the revised application was similar to the application refused by the Committee in June, 2003 and should be refused.
Refused for the following reason:
The proposal would have an overbearing presence in relation to No.16 Springfield Crescent, by virtue of its scale, massing and appearance to the detriment of neighbouring amenity. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies BE1 (i) and H10 of the Adopted Poole Local Plan (1998) and the First Alteration Revised Deposit Plan (November 2001).