Minutes:
|
SEC/2020/0001 - TO MODIFY A
PLANNING OBLIGATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6/2018/0493 (DEMOLISH TEMPORARY
CLASSROOMS AND OUTBUILDINGS AND CONVERT EXISTING REMAINING BUILDINGS TO FORM
10 DWELLINGS AND ERECT 20 NEW DWELLINGS WITH PARKING AND LANDSCAPING, REMOVAL
OF EXISTING RAISED WATER TANK AND TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AT THE FORMER ST MARYS SCHOOL, MANOR ROAD, SWANAGE, |
------
Jenny Hounsell
I’m dismayed to hear that the developers of the site of
the former St Mary's School, Manor Road, Swanage are asking to remove the
requirement for affordable housing from their plans. I do not think Swanage needs another
30 houses/flats that local families cannot afford to live in. I would therefore
like to register my objection to the amendment to the plans.
--------------------------------------
Paul
Angel
I am writing to
object to the application by Bracken Developments Ltd to remove the
requirement for affordable housing on the site of the former St Mary's School
in Swanage.
The developer knew
what they were taking on, a difficult site in the town centre, and they always
intended to renege on the requirement to include affordable housing within the
development. If they genuinely believed that the development wasn't
economically viable they wouldn't have proposed development in the first place.
The figures shown in their Economic Viability Assessment demonstrate a loss
based on 2019 property values. While the cost of build will inevitably have
risen, house valuations in Swanage have far outstripped inflation and it is
likely that they would now see a fair profit if the market-value houses are
sold at 2021 prices.
Please don't let
them get away with this. Swanage does not need a high-density development in
this location and the only mitigating factor for the town is that there may be
some homes that are affordable for local families.
-----------------------------
Becky Stares
I understand that the developer of the former St Mary's School site in
Swanage has applied to reduce/remove affordable housing from this site. There
is a huge need for affordable housing in Swanage, with so many second homes and
people from elsewhere moving in and driving up housing prices.
As a person who was born and bred in Swanage, the only way I have been
able to afford to continue living here is to live with my parents in the house
where I grew up - something I did not envisage doing at the age of 44. Although
I work in a professional job, as a single adult with a child I am not able to
afford to buy even a one-bedroomed flat. In my opinion, affordable housing
schemes are absolutely essential, to give local people to chance to stay in the
area.
I therefore
strongly urge you to reject the developer's request.
…………………………….
Richard and Liz
Moremon
We wish to OBJECT
to the modification of this planning application to remove the requirement for
affordable housing for this development.
As a resident of
the town, with a daughter who has recently benefited from a similar scheme
locally, we think this is an abject dereliction of duty by the Council if
they agree to remove this provision.
I hope this
objection is registered at the next meeting to discuss this request, and
that the developer is told to revert to their original plans.
----------------------------
Philippa Coates
Please would
you register my strong objection to the alteration of the above planning
application to remove the requirement for an allocation of affordable homes.
Swanage is
struggling to house the local people upon whom it relies to provide shops and
other services. It is vital to the survival of the town that these people
can be offered affordable housing. There are too many second homes in the
town along with people who have moved here often retired, and can afford
expensive properties.
This development
needs to have the allocated affordable homes.
----------------------------
Martin Grimsdale
I have just
been made aware that the above planning application has been modified to request
the removal of the provision of affordable housing. This is completely
unacceptable. As you will no doubt be aware Swanage has a large population of
young families and their children, supporting three primary schools. There is a
very clear and obvious need for affordable housing if Swanage is to retain and
maintain its heritage through our young and developing population. The current
economic climate is difficult enough for young families without reducing their
limited opportunities to remain in the area.
I strongly
object to this application and hope that you make the right decision.
--------------------------------------
Chris Bond
I would like to
register my objection to the revision of the planning for St Mary’s Road.
When I saw the
original application, a major benefit was the percentage of affordable homes
making up the development. On this basis I was happy not to raise any
objections.
Now the developers
want to remove/reduce this.
Swanage DOES need
new houses, but these should be prioritised for locals and their families.
Removing the affordable element effectively means more of these houses will end
up second homes/AIR BNB etc. I’m sure this goes against the original intention
of use from when it was a convent and then subsequently a school.
Also in general, I
do not understand why developers are allowed to get away with this cynical
ploy. Initial application has affordable housing included, then over time this
commitment is watered down as supplementary applications . I would hope that
Dorset Council have sufficient principles to stand against this sinister
practise.
I strongly object
to the revision of terms – please ensure this is recorded against the
application.
-----------
Julian Morley
I am writing to object to the modification
SEC/2020/0001 of the Planning Application 6/2018/0493, site of the former St
Mary's School, Manor Road, Swanage. The modification SEC/2020/0001 is for the
removal of the existing requirement for affordable housing and I ask that the
modification be refused.
A corporate priority of Purbeck District Council is to
meet local housing needs and evidence shows that affordable housing can be
provided as part of some developments, whilst still remaining financially viable
(source “Calculating affordable housing (AH) planning obligations in Purbeck”).
Policy AH requires that any schemes for new residential development over two
dwellings must provide a proportion as affordable housing. The number of new
dwellings in the development is 20, so based on How to
calculate the contribution for affordable housing as part of a planning
application the number of affordable homes should be 10, based on
the 50% rule.
----------------------------------
Nicola
Brown
Please
register my objection to the above planning application based on the
modification not to include affordable housing.
As
far as I am aware the Purbeck planning guidelines state that any 50% of new
homes at any site must be affordable which is clearly not the case with the
above modification.
Please
confirm that my objection has been registered.
-------
Jason
Elford
In regards to the above planning application I am writing
due to being very concerned about its modification on the subject of the
removal of the provision of affordable housing.
I feel for various reasons this amendment should not be
agreed. Furthermore the stipulation for the provision of affordable housing be
re-instated and no planning for this site be considered or sanctioned without
it in place for this or any future proposal. Swanage has a large population of
young families and their children whom should be rightly considered in regards
to future developments in the areas they are born and live. Removing
the option of affordable housing simply discriminates against local people requiring
the opportunity/need of the provision. It forces them to leave the area and in
many cases move away from other family members who they either support or are
supported by. The removal of the provision of affordable housing to maximise
profits over local interest should not be the way our local authorities proceed in such
matters. The requirements of those in need whom are part of our community
should be the first consideration and should be protected. As such I STRONGLY
OBJECT to the amendments.
--------------------
Maria
Green
In
regards to the above planning application I am writing due to being very
concerned about its modification on the subject of the removal of the provision
of affordable housing.
I
feel for various reasons this amendment should not be agreed. Furthermore the
stipulation for the provision of affordable housing be re-instated and no
planning for this site be considered or sanctioned without it in place for this
or any future proposal.
Swanage
has a large population of young families and their children whom should be
rightly considered in regards to future developments in the areas they are born
and live.
Removing
the option of affordable housing simply discriminates against local people
requiring the opportunity/need of the provision. It forces them to leave the
area and in many cases move away from other family members who they either
support or are supported by.
The
removal of the provision of affordable housing to maximise profits over local
interest should not be the way our local authorities proceed in such matters.
The requirements of those in need whom are part of our community should be the
first consideration and should be protected; not blindsided by amendments being
seemingly ‘snuck’ through over the busy festive period.
Again,
I VERY STRONGLY OBJECT to the amendments and am hopeful that the correct
decision will be made regarding this.
-----------------------------
Silena
E Calvo
It
has come to mine and many others notice that the above planning application has
been modified to request the removal of the provision of affordable housing.
This
is totally unacceptable, with the amount of young families and couples that are
already struggling to find affordable homes and they are being pushed further
and further out of Swanage.
In
years to come for Swanage to still be “on the map” we need to support our local
young people to live and work here and to do that there needs to be properly
priced affordable housing. We have no need for more hugely inflated priced
homes that generally fall into the hands of 2nd home owners as they are the
only ones that can afford them.
I
strongly object to this application and am greatly disappointed that this
development is trying to use the Christmas period to “sneak” in this request in the hope that
we are all to busy with our Christmas plans and what to do about Omicron,
shameful!
This
would be depriving the area of what is much needed affordable housing, (which
by the way still leaves much to be desired as affordable, affordable should be
based on the average wage of those living and working in the area and be
realistic).
So,
you hereby receive my total objection to the removal of affordable housing
within the plan .
----------------------
Daniel Calvo-Westcott
It has come to mine and many others notice that the above
planning application has been modified to request the removal of the provision
of affordable housing.
This is totally unacceptable, with the amount of young
families and couples that are already struggling to find affordable homes and
they are being pushed further and further out of Swanage.
In years to come for Swanage to still be “on the map” we
need to support our local young people to live and work here and to do that
there needs to be properly priced affordable housing. We have no need for more
hugely inflated priced homes that generally fall into the hands of 2nd home
owners as they are the only ones that can afford them.
I strongly object to this application and am greatly
disappointed that this development is trying to use the Christmas period
to “sneak” in this request in the hope that we are all to busy with our
Christmas plans and what to do about Omicron, shameful!
This would be depriving the area of what is much needed
affordable housing, (which by the way still leaves much to be desired as
affordable, affordable should be based on the average wage of those living and
working in the area and be realistic).
So, you hereby receive my total objection to the removal of affordable housing
within the plan
…………………………….
Beth
Roberts-Miller
I
am writing regarding the above development (of the old St Mary’s School
grounds) and the recent application to remove the requirement for affordable
housing.
I
feel it is necessary to point out a few things regarding this application…
1.
It is, of course, categorically reprehensible to attempt to bypass the
provision of affording housing in this development, much needed in the
area. Property prices are rising
steadily and many locals are being priced out of Purbeck by the wealthy (or
second homers, whose absence kills the town, the community and its services).
2.
It is, also, categorically reprehensible to make this application precisely
now, when most people are trying to enjoy the holiday season, especially since
last year’s Christmas was so heavily restricted.
It
smacks of a developer with no moral code.
Just the sort of developer who would promise to gift land to the council
if his building application went through and then, as soon as it went through,
decide not to gift that land after all.
There
are already a great many concerns about the development - safeguarding the
children of St Mary’s School first and foremost (in terms of privacy, air
quality AND road safety). I have made my
views clear on this before but may I reiterate that Swanage medical practice is
wholly overrun and it takes weeks and weeks for an appointment. I have had to wait nearly a year for
treatment on my hand, which stopped me from being able to work. I knew Covid has a lot to answer for, but the
people of Swanage are under threat.
There are threats to take the ambulance car away. The dentists are full, the surgery is
bursting its capacity. The locals are
working very hard to keep this community together and to keep this community
safe. What we don’t need is a greedy
developer hoodwinking the council and the locals. And we certainly don’t need a council to look
the other way.
Allowing
this developer to profit so substantially from the town without giving anything
back, would be a very erroneous move indeed.
It would destroy the goodwill of the whole town.
As
a parent of a child at St Mary’s, I hear an awful lot of opinions of those who
will be directly affected by this development.
We all agree the town needs housing - but for locals to be able to
benefit, there must be affordable housing.
It is as simple as that. We also
all agree that Northbrook Road is a disaster waiting to happen - traffic is
only getting worse. Parking for the
school is hazardous, the pavements are too narrow. Children of all ages, scooters, buggies,
parents, go up and down that pavement twice a day and always have to walk in
the road to pass one another. We also
all agree that it is unacceptable to have houses and gardens overlooking our
children’s play fields, with no visual barrier provided such as tall trees or
shrubs. I could go on...
I
am begging you to consider extremely carefully the choices made regarding this
development, and of course to dismiss outright the application to remove the
requirement for affordable housing.
Please do not be complicit with this underhand and Machiavellian
application.
……………………………………………
Barrie Friend
I am writing to
object to the developer's attempt to modify the planning application at
the site of the former St Mary's School, Manor Road, Swanage.
Swanage needs
affordable housing and the developer was granted planning permission to develop
the site which included affordable housing within the 30 planned
properties.
He is now
attempting to evade, ?again, providing this affordable housing by modifying the
plans. Planning permission was given because of the affordable housing
clause and it should remain as such.
Call me old
fashioned and cynical but his making this amendment just before the
Christmas and New Year period of festivities when most people would not see the
amendment or be too busy to object is very suspicious as the planning
meeting considering the amendment is on 5th January and the objections
would need effectively to be received by you on 3rd January.
We need affordable
housing in Swanage. Please do not allow the amendment to be approved.
Thank you.
…………………………………
Veronica
Fraser
Affordable housing equals significant economic
impacts, including increases in local purchasing power, job creation etc.
Please continue to require developers to include affordable housing in the schemes
they put forward.
…………………..
Clare Nonhebel
I'm appalled to
learn that an application has been put forward to evade the need to provide
affordable housing, by the developers of the site of the former St Mary's
School, Manor Road, Swanage.
Local families
seriously need provision made for affordable housing - both house prices and
rentals are extremely high and out of reach of many working people.
Please take this
comment into account, together with the general feeling of local Swanage people
- many of whom will not have heard about this, as the application has gone in
just before Christmas and many families are also affected by Covid.
…………………………………
Dan Goode
I am writing
register my objection to the modification of the subject planning application
to remove the provision for affordable housing.
Firstly I think I
can be forgiven for thinking that attempting to modify the application while
many people are pre-occupied with another Covid Christmas is quite crafty.
Swanage has a large
population of young families and their children whom should be rightly
considered in regards to future developments in the areas they are born and
live. Removing the option of affordable housing simply discriminates against
local people requiring the opportunity/need of the provision. It forces them to
leave the area and in many cases move away from other family members who they
either support or are supported by.
The removal of the
provision of affordable housing to maximise profits over local interest should
not be the way our local authorities proceed in such matters. The requirements
of those in need whom are part of our community should be the first
consideration and should be protected.
There is already a
large number of second homes and holiday lets in the town and it’s most obvious
during out of season months. Entire streets are in darkness leaving little room
for any town community of the kind that will provide for those that stay in
these properties.
For these reasons,
this amendment should not be agreed. Furthermore the stipulation for the
provision of affordable housing should be re-instated and no planning for this
site be considered or sanctioned without it in place for this or any future
proposal.
……………………………
Rowland Hughes
Please include my
objection to the Modification of
Planning Application SEC/2020/0001 - To “REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING”.
This is in direct contravention of why planning permission
was granted to the applicants in the first place. I ask DDC to see that this is
a very cynically timed move on behalf of the applicants to subvert the planning
procedure so that they can further their own ends.
…………………………
Melanie Field
I wish to appeal against the latest modification of the
above plans with regards to the removal of the requirement for
affordable housing element.
We definitely need to have more housing available for the
locals at local prices so we need to keep the requirement of
affordable housing on all plans.
The current house prices are just ridiculously high and
there is no possibility of locals being able to buy with a salary of
less than £50k and with a £50k deposit.
Also I wish to suggest that with the other houses
which would go on the open market. (Not just this plan but all future housing
and hopefully applied retrospectively). That there should be a clause: That the
housing needs to be OCCUPIED all the time as a main residence. (Either owners
or renters). With checks in place to make sure. As I know alot of
properties in Swanage have just one person supposedly living here for council
tax purposes, so not classed as second homes, but the houses are actually empty
for the majority of the year.
(A separate future project for the council to qualify
these empty homes and tax them more! As my estimates are 1 in 5 houses
and over 50% flats in Swanage fall into this category or even worse, classed as
small business (Airbnb and other rental) and not paying any council tax at all.
Bearing in mind that there are approx 4000 residences in Swanage, you should
get 2000 to pay up more council tax.)
I trust that the council will not allow the affordable
housing requirement to be dropped off the above plan and future ones, otherwise
the whole area will just become a ghost town as the younger generations
have been priced out and moved out of area. Especially as there is hardly
any new social housing being built to replace the old social housing being sold
without a local covenant on! Also it is almost impossible to
actually be eligible to go on the social housing waiting list in the first
place.
Ask yourself with 1000 on the original social housing
waiting list before new criteria was imposed and reduced the list accordingly,
we could have easily rehomed them in the existing 2000 empty houses if local
rules permitted it. Therefore it would save building alot of very small
footprint houses and titchy gardens. (Current policy is to maximise £'s to
quality of life in a bigger roomed house and gardens).
-----------------------------------------
Ms
C Frohwein
I am writing to say
that I STRONGLY OBJECT to the application to modify the planning obligation for
Planning Permission 6/2018/0493 in order to remove the requirement for
affordable housing.
I
support the development of this disused site of the former St Mary's School on
Manor Rd, for much-needed housing in this area, however I am appalled that the
developer is applying to evade providing affordable housing which is
desperately needed in Swanage.
It
would be a travesty if this application were to be approved and it would set a
precedent for other developers in the area to avoid providing affordable
housing. Affordable housing should be a priority for Dorset Council, especially
somewhere like Swanage which is awash with empty second homes/holiday rentals,
while the local population is priced out of the market.
I
therefore ask that you REFUSE the above application.
…………………………….
Chris
Bradey (Chair)/ Peter Jacobs - Swanage and Rural Purbeck Labour Party
The
Swanage and Rural Purbeck Branch of the Labour Party have been made aware that
Bracken Developments Ltd have applied to modify the Planning Obligation for
planning permission 6/2018/0493. They are seeking to remove the obligation in
the section 106 legal agreement to provide 11 affordable housing units. This
comes before the Planning Committee on 5 January 2022.
The
Developer has repeatedly attempted to modify the approval since it was
originally provisionally granted in 2018. The material circumstances around the
development site have not significantly changed despite the developer claiming
that a series of abnormal costs have “come to light” since the original grant
of approval. These “abnormal” costs include some demolition and clearance of existing
buildings and site features, construction of a retaining wall to deal with site
topography and an attenuation tank to deal with surface water drainage
management. It is hard to see how these issues have only come to light now and
were not apparent in the original extensive planning application.
What
is self evident is that local property prices have increased substantially over
the period and a competent developer will make significant profits when selling in a market even more
favourable than that in 2018.
Another
self evident truth is that Swanage is in desperate need of more Affordable
Housing. The best data available suggests that local residents waiting to be
housed in Purbeck, in a 2 bedroom dwelling, have to wait between 14 months and
29 years to reach the top of the list. The Swanage & Rural Purbeck Labour
Party will continue to campaign on this issue and wish to record our strong
opposition to Bracken’s attempt to develop the site without Affordable Housing.
…………….
Linda Baker
I object to the
developers request that the commitment to included affordable homes in the
above application be removed. The circumstances have not changed since the
original planning application was submitted so they should have been fully
aware of their costs and profit margins.
………..
Karen Foster
I am writing this email to express my objections to modify
the existing planning application to drop the affordable housing.
Swanage desperately needs affordable housing for the town
to grow and to keep families in the area, if this was dropped most of the
properties would become second homes which will kill the lovely community of
Swanage, you only have to look at Worth Matravers.
I feel it is about time builders apply for building plans
with all these promises of affordable homes, shared ownership or converting an
existing property then once the plans have been granted they then try to modify
them. They should be made to do these buildings first and then they
cannot get out of it.
Please please turn this down let's keep Swanage the
special place it is by having affordable homes that families can afford to buy
to become part of this amazing community and for the town to grow.
…….
Cllrs. Debbie
Monkhouse (Lab) and Nicola Rogers (Con) - Swanage Town Council
The affordable
housing requirement should not be removed because:
1. Affordable Homes
In 2020 DC reported
over 150 households waiting for Swanage, with a wait of up to 29 years for a
2-bed property in Purbeck. Local people rely on DC to represent them, and will
see the Officer’s recommendation as putting developers’ profit above a roof
over their heads.
The DC Swanage
Housing Needs Survey (2016) said the majority in housing need reported an
income below £26,000 pa. Families can’t afford to buy, and private rented
housing is unaffordable and insecure. 8% of the 1,000 respondents reported
family members having to move out of Swanage because of housing costs here.
In 2019 17% of
Swanage dwellings were second homes, but this figure excluded those not
claiming second home council tax discount, and holiday lets. The real figure
today is closer to 25% non-primary residences. We need affordable housing to
halt the hollowing out of our community.
2. “Abnormal
Costs:”
We respect the DVS,
however do not understand some figures allowed.
House prices
continue to rise. The pandemic increased demand in Purbeck, as more home
working enabled people to move out of virus-ridden cities. What current house
prices figures are being used? (15.17)
The Purbeck local
plan is likely to be finalised shortly, giving H11 Affordable
Housing, and H14 Second Homes, full weight, calling into question the timing of
this application.
That increased CIL costs from selling the houses at
100% open market value can be accommodated confirms they will be out of reach
of local people.
3. Another Option –
Robin Sutcliffe, the Chairman of SCH,
would very much welcome the possibility of looking at the feasibility of
making the affordable homes portion of the site available for the beautiful,
green and practical social housing Swanage desperately needs, with the
developer suitably recompensed.
Please investigate
before a decision is made .
……….
Barry Cullimore
I have lived in Swanage for 26 years and my two sons went to
school locally but have now moved away from Purbeck, partly due to the lack of
affordable housing in the area.
I feel it is essential that Dorset Council does all it can to
ensure developers meet the requirements for affordable housing and hope that
you see fit to refuse any modifications by this particular property developer
in this instance.
…….
Peter
Bowyer - Chair the Purbeck Society
The Purbeck
Society objects to the proposal to remove the provisions for affordable housing
from the development of the site of the former St.Marys school in Swanage ref
SEC/2020/0001.
The Economic
Viability Assessment does not appear to present a full and up to date picture.
First, the
site was purchased by Bracken at the time of the Economic Viability Assessment.
The purchaser should have been aware of the planning conditions for the
provision of affordable housing.
Second, the
Economic Viability Assessment has not valued the increase in house prices since
the date of writing the report. Www.home.uk quotes a rise of 30%
in the prices of detached houses in Dorset over the period November 2019 to
September 2021.
Third, even
though the expected profit is c 17.5% this is a high return. The increases in
house prices since November 2019 are significant and enhance the opportunity
for the developer to sell market housing thereby increasing this % return.
Greater success and effort by the developer to sell the market housing would
enable the developer to comply with the condition to provide the required
affordable housing.
Relying on a
dated Economic Viability Assessment undermines public confidence in the
planning service and appears to distort the applicant's case for the requested
amendment to this application.
The Purbeck
Society strongly opposes this proposal.
…….
Nicola
Clark, Clerk to Swanage Town Council
The Town Council would wish to express its
complete
disappointment
and frustration that the developer has submitted an
application to
remove the requirement for affordable housing so soon after
obtaining
planning approval for this development, the decision on which
could have a
material adverse impact on local housing needs/requirements.
Further comments
are made as follows:
•
• In accordance with Policy AH – Affordable Housing
of the Purbeck
Local Plan, the
development is required to make a contribution
towards the
provision of affordable housing.
•
• Pre-application advice (x2) had been taken by the
developer regarding
this development,
which included details/advice regarding the
affordable
housing policy and guidelines, and attention is also drawn
to the Senior
Housing Officer’s Report (8/11/2018) and email dated
10/01/2019.
•
• Members have reviewed the developer’s Economic
Viability
Assessment dated
26th November 2019, which has been completed
less than eight months after planning permission had been granted (on
2nd April 2019).
Questions are raised regarding the reliability of the
values and
valuations contained therein, and comments are made that
house prices in
the local area have not materially changed since that
time. It is
further felt that these financial projections should not
overturn/be a
valid reason to go against the Council’s Affordable
Housing Policy.
The Town Council
therefore wishes to make it clear that it deplores any
move to withdraw
the affordable housing element of this development
scheme.
……….
Jo Tasker – Ken Parke Planning
Consultants – on behalf of the applicant
Thank you for this opportunity to make a representation to you.
I am speaking on behalf of the applicants to support the application.
After very careful consideration we found that unfortunately this
application was needed because the current scheme is found to be unviable.
We submitted this application in May 2020. The applicants took
specialist advice from engineers, quantity surveyors and a valuation
consultant. Expert advice underpins a detailed Economic Viability Assessment
prepared by Mr Newman who is a Chartered Surveyor and Registered RICS Valuer.
We paid the Council’s fees for independent consideration of Mr Newman’s
assessment by the Government’s Valuation Office Agency (District Valuation
Service, known as DVS).
Supplementary information and clarification was required during the
process and we provided this and paid an additional fee to the DVS for their
further consideration.
This very thorough assessment process has taken more than 18 months.
The DVS has agreed that the development is not viable if affordable
housing is provided. This is set out in detail in your officer’s report to
committee, a recommendation made following a lengthy and detailed technical
assessment by experts.
The applicants reasonably and respectfully request
that Members support their Officer’s recommendation and allow the removal of
the Section 106 legal agreement in this case.
---------------------
3/21/0668/FUL - TO EXTEND THE EXISTING SINGLE STOREY BUILDING
AND CHANGE USE TO THAT OF HAND CAR WASH FACILITY AT LAND AT REAR OF 5 HIGH
STREET (HIGH STREET CAR PARK) WIMBORNE MINSTER
……………………
John
Gatrell (on behalf of Wimborne Residents Action Group)
As a resident of
the town and representative of the Wimborne Residents Action Group, I wish to
object to the above application on the following grounds.
1. We believe the proposal site is within
the Wimborne Minster Conservation area and is adjacent to listed buildings yet
no Heritage Statement has been provided.
2. The proposal is within the Primary
Shopping Area as defined by policy WMC1.
We do not believe the use can be classified as retail.
3. Policy WMC1 states “The Townscape
quality of the town centre will be enhanced; only high quality development proposals
that respect and enhance the local character of the centre... will be
permitted”. The proposal neither
respects nor enhances the area.
4. Policy WMC1 states “..in order to
improve pedestrian safety, traffic movement and improve the ambience of the
public realm, traffic management and calming measures will be considered to
reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflict and enhancements to the High Street will
be introduced...” The proposal
requires vehicular access across a busy pavement and narrow passageway and runs
directly contrary to this policy.
5. Policy WMC1 states “New
development...in the town centre will be of the highest standard of design...to
reflect the architectural and historic significance of the town centre.” The proposed design is not of high quality
nor in keeping with the town centre.
This requirement is also reinforced by policy HE2.
6. The noise impact on neighbouring
residential properties will be considerable.
The submitted sound report notes the proposal will require mitigation
because of the noise generated, but these measures may not be employed and in
any case are likely to be ineffective in containing low frequency noise. A number of premises in the town already
flout various regulations regarding licenses (such as A-boards). It should also be noted that most of the
surrounding residences are Grade II listed and therefore will not be permitted
to make changes to their properties to mitigate the noise that this development
will generate daily. For these reasons
the proposal is contrary to Policy DES2.
7. As the proposal requires an oil
interceptor (as noted in the Vehicle Waste Water Recycling System document), we
would expect there to be details of the drainage system. The proposal will generate oil and other
pollutants but sits within a flood plain, adjacent to a chalk stream of
national importance. Yet the application
form states the existing drainage system as “unknown”. This is woefully
inadequate information.
8. As the proposal will increase the number
of car movements per day via an already unsafe entrance/exit, I would question
whether Dorset Council Highways have fully understood the proposal?
To conclude, the
proposal is contrary to several guiding principles of Policy WMC1, HE2 and
DES2. There is insufficient information
to guarantee that there will not be an environmental catastrophe.
For these reasons
the application should be rejected.
…………
Rumen
Velev
I fully support
this application for the below reasons,
-Wimborne has not
got any hand wash facility business, and Wimborne citizens need
that service.
- Location is
already a car park and has traffic and a slight increase of the traffic
won’t create a problem.
- that the Business
request has completed all legal and technical requirements.
- I believe
Wimborne residents should be served with high end services
and applications. Wimborne needs change in a positive way , and this
business enterprise will be one of them. I believe this will bring more
attraction to town centre, people will enjoy their food and drink when their
cars are being washed and will be going home happy with shining cars.
Hope this can
be granted and will be serving Wimborne for many years.
……………………………….
James
Cain - Planning Base Ltd - planning consultant and the agent
I have read the
officer’s report and agree wholly with the contents of it. This proposal should be approved and we have
followed to the letter the appropriate planning guidance. I have experience of appeal hearings
concerning car washes in urban areas and have won costs against local
authorities on the subject (see PINS Refs 3013850 and 3193984 for example).
In this application
at the rear of 5 High Street, we undertook pre-application consultation with
the conservation officer and highways authority and have been meticulous in
terms of satisfying the necessary issues with regards to access, noise and
conservation. We have provided
professional reports from outside consultants where necessary and the scheme
has been produced by a local RIBA practice.
There are consequently no objections from the various statutory
consultees and that is testament to the robustness of this application.
As your officer
concludes, there are no grounds to refuse this application and the applicant
will comply fully with the proposed conditions set out. He is eager to start in 2022 and create
employment in the town.
This will bring into
being a much needed facility for the town of Wimborne and will save on numbers
of car journeys by locating a car wash in the town centre within an existing
car park. It is the epitome of
sustainability and accessibility as the car drivers of Wimborne won’t have to
travel to have their vehicles cleaned.
I trust that
Members can see the efforts put into the preparation of this application and
that it can now be approved at long last.
………………………
P/HOU/2021/02711 - CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT PORCH
AT 1 HILLSIDE AFFPUDDLE
Paul Foot - Agent’s Statement
The
size of the proposed porch extension has been carefully considered based on:
·
Previous
pre-application advice where an earlier design was rejected for being too
large.
·
The
need to provide a space which is more usable than the existing porch.
·
Built
with cavity walls to current Building Regulations standards.
·
The
application design is of moderate size and does not overpower the applicant’s
or the neighbour’s properties.
The
roof has been designed to be in character with the existing house. The pitched
roof would be tiled to match the main house. It is common practice to design
porches with lean-to roofs on all types of properties whether historic or more
modern.
A
flat roof would have to be a lot higher at the eaves than that of the pitched
roof proposed to provide adequate internal headroom and to achieve the
insulation levels required under the Building Regulations. The imposing height
of this resulting flat roof would be out of character to this property and the
Conservation Area as a whole.
------------------------------------
Geoff Sagar - applicant
I would like to
offer comment which disagrees with the recommendations of the Case Officer for
this application and I would urge the committee to please approve this
application.
This application is
being made simply to improve the appearance and general utility of the
property, to bring it more in line with
·
Current
building regulations (replacement of poorly insulated roof and single-glazed
windows)
·
General
expectations of ground floor space for a typical 3-bedroomed property
·
Space
and utility requirements for a family home where home-working with a young
family is now becoming the norm.
The design of the
proposed scheme has been specifically made to incorporate building methods from
the main property to minimise visual impact and to provide consistency with the
main property and neighbouring buildings.
Therefore, we
refute your comment 3.0 that the proposed porch would have a “dominating
effect”; an opinion which is supported by our neighbour’s comment that “the
porch will be a considerable improvement and will not clash with the existing
building – it will enhance it”. This assessment seems to be endorsed by
your report’s later comment on page 118 that the proposal is “of a modest
size… would have no adverse implications for occupants of neighbouring
property.” In addition, it should be clarified that the
building-to-building distance to our neighbour you have referred to in this
comment of 33m is incorrect, the actual distance is 51m, and we are not
directly opposite them.
We agree with the
description in section 5.0 of your report that the property is “not of
historic significance” but your comment regarding visibility is factually
incorrect, as it refers only to screening from a deciduous tree and ignores the
presence of evergreen Privet hedges to the road and Photinia hedge on the
driveway.
Your comment on
page 116 regarding the proposal making “substantial increase in size and
massing” should be considered alongside the fact that this design is only
approximately a 6% increase in current lower ground floor area, and the
design’s footprint incorporates cavity walls to replace the current single-skin
brick wall.
Furthermore, your
comments relating to the characterisation of cottage development are
inconsistent with recent developments which have been permitted in the village
for properties on the south side to the main road (where we are located), so it
seems unfair that our proposal is being recommended for refusal?
Finally, I would
like to refute your comment on page 119 that pre-application advice was
offered. This was not the case when our application was made (re:
telephone conversation with Ros Drane, May 2021). Therefore, your assertion
that “the applicant was advised that the proposal did not accord…” is
factually incorrect.
……..
Sue
Jones – Chairman of Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle Parish Council
The Parish Council
supports this application. Overall, it considers it a minor change to the
property which is situated amongst a very varied collection of more recent none
– listed homes. Parish Councillors do
not consider that the proposal would have any significant impact on the special
character and historic interest of the conservation area. In contrast it would seem to enhance the
appearance of the property and offer a real increase in the quality of life of
the applicant.
Whilst the Parish
Council appreciates the point of view the Conservation Officer has reported,
the question of whether the application would cause less than substantial harm
to the character and appearance of the Piddle Valley Conservation Area is
necessarily a subjective one. In this case the Parish Council considers that
the proposed design does not have a dominating affect in the Conservation Area.
Whilst the site is
elevated it is well screened by hedging, fencing and a substantial apple
tree. Whist the apple is deciduous it
remains as a screening silhouette during winter months. The green fencing and substantial evergreen
hedging comprising privet and photina screens the property looking up from and
along the road as does a high boundary privet hedge between the property and
its adjoining neighbouring property 2 Hillside.
Beyond the road the
applicant looks onto open countryside which does not have close footpaths or
bridleways. As such it is difficult to
see how the Conservation Areas character and historical interest could be
detrimentally affected by the impact of the proposed modest extension. In the opinion of the Parish Council the
proposal will enhance the appearance of the property which will replace a
rather flimsy flat roof addition with a roof that will be more in keeping with
the existing tiled roof of the house.
The property is one
of many properties extending on this long stretch of road with the majority
enjoying an elevated position.
Properties have been added and extended over decades and consequently the
streetscape is very mixed in terms of style and materials. Taken in the context of this setting Parish
Councillors do not consider the proposal would harm the character of the
Conservation Area, and on balance it would enhance it.
Parish Councillors
are familiar with the site and several have visited the location in person
following this application. The Parish
Council voted unanimously to support this application and continues to do so
following the Conservation Officers report.