APPENDIX

SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 24 APRIL 2014

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM NO / 01
APPLICATION NO. / APP/13/01584/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 74 Lilliput Road, Poole, BH14 8LA
PROPOSALS / Demolition of the existing house and the erection of a 9 unit apartment building with associated access and parking
REGISTERED / 2 January, 2014
APPLICANT / Mr & Mrs R Crump
AGENT / Pure Town Planning
WARD / Canford Cliffs
CASE OFFICER / Darryl Howells

The Application was before the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Haines because of residents’ concerns about overdevelopment.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 24 April 2014 which commenced at 10:58am and concluded at 11:11am. All Members of the Committee were in attendance.

Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to 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, additional representations received, details of amended plans and a revised condition No.8 concerning plans listing.

In response to a Member’s request for clarification on the Site visit, the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that there was an area TPO in place dated 1964.

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

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed development would positively enhance the character and appearance of the area and would not materially harm the amenities of the existing or future occupiers of neighbouring properties, whether their site remained either a single household or was redeveloped as flats, as current proposals showed. With minor alteration to the visibility splay on Lilliput Road, it was considered that the quantum of vehicle movements would not prejudice highway movements along Lilliput Road. The Proposals generally accorded with adopted planning policies.

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

  • Accept that properties were ideal for development, however, objected to the current Proposals.
  • Quoted PCS05
  • Unpersuaded that Lilliput Road was an area where flatted development predominated
  • Numbers 74, 76, 78, 80, 103 and 109 Lilliput Road were detached homes.
  • 2008 permission for No.103 had now lapsed.
  • Forsyte Shades and approved developments in Compton Avenue were not adjacent to, nor visible from Lilliput Road.
  • Significant adverse impact on the street scene
  • Limited bus service, with bus stops some distance from the Application Site.
  • Planning Officer at pre-application stage stated that one single application would be the best way forward, rather than four separate applications.
  • Present situation, tantamount to a “planning jigsaw”.
  • Fragmented and disparate development over an extended period.
  • Referred to CIL and Affordable Housing contributions quoted by the Planning Consultant.
  • Revised plans were welcomed, however, the areas and dimensional details had now been deleted from the drawings.
  • Latest Proposal still appeared to have an appreciably greater mass than the precedent quoted on the north side of Lilliput Road.
  • Too many outstanding conditions still to be agreed.
  • Where would delivery vans and trades vehicles be parked when visiting flats?
  • Site coverage too high.
  • Increased parking would cause narrowing of the carriageway on Lilliput Road, which was very busy.
  • Applications for 74, 76 and 78 were dependent on No.80 participating to provide adequate sight lines for safety.

Mr Annen, Agent for the Applicant, expressed his views, details included:

  • Area changing in character
  • Flatted development predominated
  • Acceptable in planning terms.
  • Requested Members grant planning permission
  • Similar to other developments in the area
  • In density terms, entirely appropriate.
  • Scale/mass/bulk compared favourably with other nearby developments
  • Proposal was smaller, with less visual impact
  • A lot of time had been invested in the design
  • No detrimental impact
  • Following the issue of the “Red Card”, Applicant had moved the Proposal further away from the road
  • One large Application concerning all four sites was not possible as the properties were owned by four different people.
  • Arboricultural Officer had no concerns.
  • Parking provision was policy compliant.
  • Great application for new, high quality properties
  • No detrimental impact
  • Core Strategy compliant

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

  • Members were advised to consider one application at a time, and if minded to approve, when debating the next Application, it would be a material consideration that the previous Application had been approved.
  • With regard to condition No.3, regarding the provision of a cat proof fence, it was included due to the nearby SSSI and therefore was proposed as a precaution.

Ward Councillor Mrs Haines stated that the Site visit was extremely helpful. On its own, the Proposal was acceptable, however, Members should take into account the other 3 Applications as well.

Ward Councillor Pawlowski stated that the Proposal was acceptable as flatted development predominated in the area. The design had no adverse effect on the street scene, well shielded by trees and highway safety had been improved.

A Member stated that it was difficult to separate the four proposed schemes, however, the design was excellent and consequently was minded to approve.

A Member stated that he found the Site Visit very useful. He stated that the setting was beautiful and it was a shame to change it.

A Member agreed with comments regarding the sylvan setting. The area would change, however, that was not a bad thing, it was just different.

The Chairman stated that his original concerns regarding highway safety had been allayed, and that in his opinion, flatted development predominated in the area.

Mr Pines summed up his views, details included:

  • Questioned whether flatted development predominated
  • Not a comprehensive scheme
  • Could take years to develop
  • Builders vehicles could cause significant inconvenience

Mr Annen summed up his views, details included:

  • Architect had looked at every scenario
  • With regard to the movement of waste bins, a bin tractor could be used

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted subject to a Section 106 and the following Conditions:

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))
2. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3)
3. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
Prior to any demolition on site, a cat proof fence at least 2 metres in height with provision of a two-way badger gate shall be erected along the full length of the boundary with the adjacent golf course and thereafter retained.
Reason -
To ensure proper maintenance of land retained for wildlife conservation purposes and in accordance with Policy PCS28 and PCS29 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policy DM9 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).
4. GN162 (Renewable Energy - Residential)
5. GN030 (Sample of Materials)
6. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning space, garaging, and vehicle parking shown on the approved plan have been constructed, and these shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those purposes at all times. Furthermore at no time shall the entrance to the underground parking area be restricted by reason of gates or any form of barrier without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason -
In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy PCS5(i) of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and to ensure that visitor car parking is maintained in accordance with the Parking & Highway Layout in New Development SPD (adopted June 2011).
6. HW230 (Permeable surfacing condition)
7. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Site Plan (Drawing number 8367/400-D received 3rd April 2014)
Block and Location Plans (Drawing number 8367/401 received 3rd February 2014)
Proposed Floor Plans 1 of 2 (Drawing number 8367/402-C received 3rd April 2014)
Proposed Floor Plans 2 of 2 (Drawing number 8367/403-D received 15th April 2014)
Proposed Elevations (Drawing number 8367/404-C received 15th April 2014)
Site Section A-A (Drawing number 8367/405-B received 3rd April 2014)
Street Scene (Drawing number 8367/406-B received 3rd April 2014)
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
8. HW220 (Specified Works)
No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless and until the following works have been constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, namely the passing areas, path relocation, path lighting, installation of traffic signals and clarification regarding the basement ramp gradient and basement height clearances.
Reason -
These specified works are seen as a pre-requisite of allowing this development to proceed and in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009), Policy DM8 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management DPD (adopted 2012) and the Council's Parking and Highway Layout in New Development SPD (adopted June 2011).
9. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
The communal gardens on the approved plan shall be retained for communal use by all residents of the block and at no time shall any part
of the communal garden be severed to provide a private amenity area.
Reason
To ensure access of potential occupiers to quality external amenity space in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies (adopted 2012).
10. GN090 (Obscure Glazing of Window(s))
Both in the first instance and upon all subsequent occasions, the lounge and kitchen windows of flat no.6; and the living room windows of flat 9 positioned on the side south-east elevation (drawing no. 8367/404-B received 3rd April 2014) shall be glazed with obscure glass in a form sufficient to prevent external views and shall either be a fixed light or hung in such a way as to prevent the effect of obscure glazing being negated by reason of opening.
Reason -
To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties and in accordance with Policy DM1(v) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).
11. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
Notwithstanding the submitted arboricultural method statement, prior to the commencement of the development including the existing building's demolition, a revised arboricultural method statement prepared by an arboricultural consultant holding a nationally recognised arboricultural qualification providing comprehensive details of construction works in relation to trees shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. All works shall subsequently be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. In particular, the method statement must provide the following:-
a) a specification for protective fencing to trees during both demolition and construction phases which complies with BS5837:2012 and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing;
b) a specification for scaffolding and ground protection within tree protection zones in accordance with BS5837;
c) a schedule of tree works conforming to BS3998;
d) details of general arboricultural matters such as the area for storage of materials, concrete mixing and use of fires;
e) plans and particulars showing the siting of the service and piping infrastructure;
f) a full specification for the construction of any arboriculturally sensitive structures and sections through them, including the installation of boundary treatment works, the method of construction of the access driveway including details of the no-dig specification and extent of the areas of the driveway to be constructed using a no-dig specification;
g) details of the works requiring arboricultural supervision to be carried out by the developer's arboricultural consultant, including details of the frequency of supervisory visits and procedure for notifying the Local Planning Authority of the findings of the supervisory visits; and
h) details of all other activities which have implications for trees on or adjacent to the site.
Reason -
In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that the trees to be retained on-site will not be damaged during the construction works and to ensure that as far as possible the work is carried out in accordance with current best practice and in accordance with Policy DM1 (iii) of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).
12. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
Prior to any development on the application site including the demolition of the existing building, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, details to secure 15 metres extra of increased eastward visibility splay shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the demolition of the existing building, the land designated as visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over 0.6 metres above the level of the adjoining highway, including the reduction in level of the land if necessary, and nothing over that height shall be permitted to remain, be placed, built, planted or grown on the land so designated at any time.
Reason -
In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009), and Policy DM8 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies (adopted 2012).
13. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied for residential purposes until a Refuse Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include: details of the management company to be set up; the employment of a private contractor to collect the refuse; measures to be taken if no private contractor is available at any time in the future (such as the employment of a person or persons to ensure bins are wheeled to the collection point); and that bins will not be stored in the open or at the collection point apart from on the day of collection. The Refuse Management Plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason -
In the interests of preserving visual amenities, meeting the residential needs of intended occupiers and highway safety and in accordance with Policies PCS15 of the Poole Core Strategy (adopted 2009), and Policies DM1 and DM8 of the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management policies (adopted 2012).

Informative Notes

1. IN72 (Working with applicants: Approval)
2. IN74 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Approval)
3. IN43 (Section 106 Agreement)

Voting:For -8Against – 0 Abstained –1

ITEM NO / 02
APPLICATION NO. / APP/13/01582/F
APPLICATION TYPE / Full
SITE ADDRESS / 76 Lilliput Road, Poole, BH14 8LA
PROPOSALS / Demolition of the existing house and the erection of a 9 unit apartment building with associated access and parking (Amended plans received 03/04/14)
REGISTERED / 14 February, 2014
APPLICANT / Mrs M B Barker
AGENT / Pure Town Planning
WARD / Canford Cliffs
CASE OFFICER / Darryl Howells

The Application was before the Committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Haines because of residents’ concerns about overdevelopment.

The Application was the subject of a Members’ Site visit on 24 April 2014 which commenced at 11:11am and concluded at 11:22am. All Planning Committee Members were in attendance.

Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, gave a site description and referred to 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, details of additional representations and an additional condition regarding tree re-planting. The Senior Planning Officer continued by detailing an additional proposed condition regarding existing and proposed access arrangements.

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

In conclusion, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed development would positively enhance the character and appearance of the area and would not materially harm the amenities of existing or future occupiers of neighbouring properties, whether their site remained either a single household or was redeveloped as flats, as the current Proposal showed. With minor alteration to the visibility splay onto Lilliput Road, it was considered that the quantum of vehicle movements would not prejudice highway movements along Lilliput Road. The Proposal generally accorded with adopted planning policies.

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

  • Did not agree that flatted development predominated in the area
  • Out of character
  • Road safety proposals would not apply if other proposals were not built
  • How would sewerage issues be addressed, pumping station was private?
  • Sewerage in area was not a part of Wessex Water.

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

  • Requested Members grant planning permission.
  • Not out of character in terms of density
  • Site, further away in the “back corner”
  • Matured boundary screening
  • Time had been taken in arriving at the best design
  • Significant attention to detail in order to address residents’ concern
  • Footprint had been reduced
  • Significant financial contribution

Ward Councillor Mrs Haines stated that she welcomed the revised design and as far as the street scene was concerned, she had no problems. Councillor Mrs Haines added that she still had concerns regarding access arrangements.

Mr Pine summed up his views, details included:

  • Visitor parking was an issue
  • Questioned the sewerage arrangements

Following a request from the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer informed Members that sewerage arrangements were dealt with under Building Regulations and were not a planning issue.

RESOLVED that planning permission be Granted with Section 106subject to the following Conditions:

1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))
2. GN160 (Sustainable Homes - Code Level 3)
3. AA01 (Non standard Condition)
Prior to any demolition on site, a cat proof fence at least 2 metres in height with provision of a two-way badger gate shall be erected along the full length of the boundary with the adjacent golf course and thereafter retained.
Reason -
To ensure proper maintenance of land retained for wildlife conservation purposes and in accordance with Policy PCS28 and PCS29 of the Poole Core Strategy (February 2009) and Policy DM9 of the Site Specific Allocations & Development Management Policies (April 2012).