To consider the applications listed below for planning permission.
a) 6/2021/0262 - Withy Lakes, Church Knowle, BH20 5NG - Erect detached self-build rural
exception site dwelling
b) 6/2021/0249
Tower House, Tower Hill, Bere Regis - Demolish
existing property and erect 5 detached properties with associated parking,
access and landscaping.
c) P/HOU/2021/04823
- 7 Stanbarrow Close, Bere Regis, Wareham - Proposed
single/two storey extension to rear elevation. Extension of side boundary wall
and form new pedestrian access.
d) P/FUL/2021/04102
- Pear Tree Nursery School, Parley First School, Glenmoor
Road, Ferndown, BH22 8QD - Demolition of existing nursery
structures and construction of replacement nursery building.
e) P/FUL/2021/03912-
Hayeswood First School, Cutlers Place, Colehill – Formation
of a new vehicle entrance, relocate existing pedestrian entrance and
reformation of the car parking and car park spaces. New access ramp, fencing
and gates.
Minutes:
6/2021/0262 - Withy Lakes, Church Knowle, BH20 5NG - Erect
detached self-build rural exception site dwelling
The Committee considered
application 6/2021/0262 to erect a detached self-build rural exception site
dwelling, at Withy Lakes, Church Knowle – the definition of a rural exception
site being a small site used
for affordable housing, in perpetuity, where the site would not normally be
used for housing, in addressing the needs of the local community by
accommodating households who are either current residents or have an existing
family or employment connection. How any resale value formula was derived was
clarified, with the District Valuer recommending a resale value of 47% of the
market value. The prescriptions on self-build affordable housing were drawn to
the attention of Members and, due to the increasing numbers on the housing
register and the shortage of general needs affordable housing, officers
considered it was vital to provide such affordable housing.
With the aid of a visual
presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided
context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the
development were; how these were to be progressed; and what this entailed. The
presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed
design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character
the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was
being assessed.
Plans and photographs provided
an illustration of how the development was to look – including its design,
dimensions and appearance; access and highway considerations; environmental and
land management considerations; drainage and water management considerations,
the means of landscaping and screening and the development’s setting within
that part of Church Knowle and the Dorset AONB.
Officers showed the development’s
relationship with other adjacent residential
development, with the characteristics and
topography of the site being shown. Views into the site and around it was
shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.
What assessment had been made in the
officers coming to their recommendation were drawn to the attention of the
Committee, with the proposal being considered to be acceptable in relation to
material planning considerations, with all significant planning matters having
been appropriately, or adequately, addressed.
Church Knowle Parish Council opposed
the application on the grounds that it would be development of agricultural
land outside the defined settlement boundary and in the AONB.
Steve Tapscott, the agent,
considered the application to be of merit and was designed to meet a specific
need with the development not being remote from and village and adjacent to an
already established property.
Having heard what was said, officers
responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one
could be addressed by the provisions of the application.
The opportunity was then given for members
to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking
clarification of aspects so
as to have a better understanding in coming
to a decision.
Some important points raised, some of which
they considered still required clarification, were:-
• access, road maintenance issues and ownership
of the road
• how the S106 agreement would be enacted and
on what basis this would be, in the event this element was required
Officers addressed the questions raised – and
provided what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be
satisfactory answers, which the Committee understood to be, and saw, as
generally acceptable.
Of importance was that officers considered there to be no material considerations which would warrant
refusal of the application and that this was the basis of the assessments made
and the recommendation before the Committee.
From debate, the majority of the Committee
considered the proposal to be acceptable - in meeting an identified need and in
making the best use of the land available – and considered that this
development would be of benefit to the Church Knowle community and serve to
meet the issues Purbeck had in being able to satisfy its identified housing
need.
Having had the opportunity to discuss the
merits of the application and an
understanding of all this entailed; having
taken into account the officer’s report
and presentation; the written
representation; and what they had heard at the
meeting, in being proposed by Councillor
Shane Bartlett and seconded by
Councillor Alex Brenton, on being put to the
vote, the Committee agreed - by 7:1 - to grant permission, subject to the
conditions and informative noted set out in paragraph 17 of the officer’s
report.
Resolved
a)That permission be
granted subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal
Agreement to secure the provision of the affordable housing in perpetuity
or
b) That permission be refused if
the legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended) is not completed within 6 months from the date of committee or
such extended time as agreed by the Service Manager for Development Management
and Enforcement.
Reasons for Decision
•
Para 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that
permission should be granted for sustainable development unless specific
policies in the NPPF indicate otherwise
• The
proposal is compliant with the NPPF, Purbeck Local Plan Part 1 and the
Affordable Housing SPD in terms of Rural Exception Site Affordable Housing
provision.
•
There is not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential
amenity.
• There are no material
considerations which would warrant refusal of this application.
6/2021/0249 Tower House, Tower Hill, Bere Regis - Demolish
existing property and erect 5 detached properties with associated parking,
access and landscaping.
The Committee considered
application 6/2021/0249 to demolish an existing property and erect 5 detached
properties with associated parking, access and landscaping at Tower House,
Tower Hill, Bere Regis.
With the aid of a visual
presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided
context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the
development were; how these were to be progressed; and what this entailed. The
presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed
design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character
the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was
being assessed.
Plans and photographs provided
an illustration of how the development was to look – including its design,
dimensions, configuration and appearance; along with its ground floor plans;
the materials to be used; access and highway considerations; environmental and
land management considerations; drainage and water management considerations,
the means of landscaping and screening and the development’s setting within
that part of Bere Regis and the Conservation Area.
Officers showed the development’s
relationship with other adjacent residential
development, with the characteristics and
topography of the site being shown. Views into the site and around it was
shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.
What assessment had been made in the
officers coming to their recommendation were drawn to the attention of the
Committee, with the proposal being considered to be unacceptable in relation to
material planning considerations as the proposed development would erode the
existing transitional character of the area by establishing a development which
will be highly visible in the Tower Hill streetscene
given the two dwellings proposed to the front of the plot. Accordingly, the
proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the character of the Bere
Regis Conservation Area due to the intensification of development on the
application site which will result in detrimental impacts on the
characteristics of the Conservation Area.
The Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) and the Bere Regis
Townscape Character Appraisal (TCA) were considered to be of relevance when
assessing the application with the CAA emphasising the importance of the
village edge and transitional qualities of the various back lanes which form a
legible boundary along the north side of the village core. Whilst bringing some highway access benefits, the
proposed carriageway widening would further alter the character of this
established ‘back lane’ which was considered to be a significant characteristic
of the Bere Regis Conservation Area.
These assessments formed the basis of
the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.
From formal consultation, Bere
Regis Parish Council supported the application on the grounds
that the widening of the road would be beneficial.
Peter
Rennison objected to the proposal on the grounds of overlooking, the destruction of a natural hedgerow,
traffic and access issues and that it was not included in the Neighbourhood
Plan. A submission by Patrick Hamilton was read to the Committee who also
objected on the grounds of traffic, townscape, history/heritage and
overlooking.
Jonathan Blackmore -
the applicant - supported the proposals as he considered the application to be
of public benefit and would provide much needed housing in the village and there
were mitigating measures to address issues of concern and the parish council
were supportive too. Suzie Gee was unable to attend as expected but her views
were read to Committee in that there was need for more houses in the village to
meet local need, that the site would still be quite secluded and not prominent
and that there would be benefits from the road widening proposal.
Parish Councillor
Ian Ventham agreed that whilst there were some
concerns of overlooking, the benefits of widening the road would outweigh this.
He confirmed the Parish Council was in favour of this development and supported
in fill development and, whilst this site was not in the Neighbourhood Plan, it
did abut it.
Giles Moir, the agent,
considered the development to be acceptable and provided much needed housing
for Bere Regis.
Having heard what was said, officers
responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one
could be addressed by the provisions of the application.
The opportunity was then given for members
to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking
clarification of aspects so
as to have a better understanding in coming
to a decision.
Some important points raised, some of which
they considered still required clarification, were:-
• access arrangements and what weight should be
given to the benefit of the road widening proposal
·
How this development contributed to meeting housing need in Bere Regis.
·
how the Conservation Area would be impacted by the development and what
effect there would be on neighbouring amenity
·
The proximity between Plots 1 and 2 and the neighbouring established
properties in Tower Hill – this being a distance of only some 11 metres instead
of the recommended 21 metres and how this might have a bearing on privacy and
overlooking.
Officers addressed the questions raised –
and provided what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to
be satisfactory answers, which the Committee understood to be, and saw, as
generally acceptable.
Of importance was that taking the CAA into
consideration officers considered there to be less than
substantial harm caused by this proposal and on that basis could not recommend
approval.
From debate, the majority of the Committee
considered the recommendation was acceptable in the circumstances given the
adverse effect it would have on the conservation area and consideration that
given the proximity of the development to Tower Hill properties this should
also be a reason why the application should be refused. Should the scheme be
able to be redesigned to increase the said distance, then this was likely to be
more acceptable but, as it stood, this was not the case. However, some members
considered the application to be acceptable as it was – especially as the
Parish Council was supportive - and would provide much needed housing to meet
local need.
Having had the opportunity to discuss the
merits of the application and an
understanding of all this entailed; having
taken into account the officer’s report
and presentation; the written
representation; and what they had heard at the
meeting, in being proposed by Councillor
Shane Bartlett and seconded by
Councillor Mike Barron, on being put to the
vote, the Committee agreed - by 5:4 - to refuse permission.
Resolved
That application 6/2021/0249 be
refused.
Reasons
for Decision
As
set out in paragraph 16.1 of the officer’s report:-
The
proposed development, by virtue of the infilling of the site, is considered to
cause less than substantial harm to the Bere Regis Conservation Area.
The public benefits offered are
not considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm caused.
and
The proposal would
introduce two new units in close proximity to The Poppies and Meadow View Barn
on Tower Hill which would introduce harmful overlooking to the front of those
dwellings resulting in loss of privacy to the detriment of the occupants'
amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D of the Purbeck Local
Plan Part 1, paragraph 130 of the NPPF and the Purbeck Design Guide.
P/HOU/2021/04823 - 7 Stanbarrow
Close, Bere Regis, Wareham - Proposed single/two storey extension to rear
elevation. Extension of side boundary wall and form new pedestrian access.
The Committee considered
application P/HOU/2021/04823 – for a proposed single/two storey extension to
rear elevation, an extension of a side boundary wall and to form a new
pedestrian access at 7 Stanbarrow Close, Bere Regis,
Wareham.
With the aid of a visual
presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided
context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the
development were; how these were to be progressed; and what this entailed. The
presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed
design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character
the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was
being assessed. The planning
history of the site was explained too.
Plans and photographs provided
an illustration of how the development was to look – including its design, dimensions
and appearance; access considerations; the means of landscaping and the
extension’s setting within that part of Bere Regis.
Officers showed the development’s
relationship with other adjacent residential
development, with the characteristics of the
site being shown. Views into the site and around it was shown, which provided a
satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.
What assessment had been made in the
officers coming to their recommendation were drawn to the attention of the Committee,
with the proposal being considered to be acceptable in relation to material
planning considerations, with all significant planning matters having been
appropriately, or adequately, addressed.
Bere Regis Parish Council supported
the application.
The opportunity was then given for members
to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking
clarification of aspects so as to have a better understanding in coming to a
decision.
Some important points were raised, some of
which they considered still required clarification, which Officers addressed to
the satisfaction of the Committee. It was also clarified that this application
required a Committee decision given that a Council employee had a vested
interest in it.
Of importance was that officers considered there to be no material considerations which would warrant
refusal of the application and that this was the basis of the assessments made
and the recommendation before the Committee.
From debate, the Committee considered the
proposal to be acceptable – given that amended plans had now overcome initial
amenity issues relating to unreasonable loss of light or an overbearing impact
and had also scaled back the proposal which could be accommodated on the site
without harm to the character of the area. The proposal now accorded with the
policies of the Local Plan.
Having had the opportunity to discuss the
merits of the application and an
understanding of all this entailed; having
taken into account the officer’s report
and presentation; and what they had heard at
the meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by
Councillor David Morgan, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed –
unanimously - to grant permission, subject to the conditions and informative
noted set out in paragraph 17 of the officer’s report.
Resolved
That application
P/HOU/2021/04823 be granted permission, subject to the conditions set out in
paragraph 17 of the officer’s report.
Reasons for Decision
• The
proposal was acceptable in its design and general visual impact – paragraph
15.3.
•
There was not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential
amenity - paragraph 15.4.
•
There were no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this
application.
• There was no adverse impact on
the character of the area.
P/FUL/2021/04102 - Pear Tree Nursery School, Parley First
School, Glenmoor Road, Ferndown, BH22 8QD -
Demolition of existing nursery structures and construction of replacement
nursery building.
The Committee considered
application P/FUL/2021/04102 for the demolition of existing nursery structures and construction of
replacement nursery building at Pear Tree Nursery
School, Parley First School, Glenmoor Road, Ferndown.
Officer’s confirmed that this application required a Committee decision given
that it was a Council led application.
With the aid of a visual
presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided
context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the
development were; how these were to be progressed; and what this entailed. The
presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed
design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character
the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was
being assessed.
Plans and photographs provided
an illustration of how the development was to look – including its design,
dimensions, configuration and appearance; along with its ground floor plans;
the materials to be used; access and highway considerations; environmental and
land management considerations; drainage and water management considerations,
the means of landscaping and screening and the development’s setting within
that part of Ferndown.
Officers showed the development’s
relationship with other adjacent residential
development, with the characteristics and
topography of the site being shown. Views into the site and around it was
shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.
The need for the development was explained and this investment was designed so
as to ensure that the facility would be able to provide for the quality of
service being maintained: there would be a public benefit by replacing the
existing prefabricated nursery building with a more modern and sustainable
structure. It would be situated within the same footprint of the existing
buildings on site.
What assessment had been made in the
officer’s coming to their recommendation were drawn to the attention of the
Committee, with the proposal being considered to be acceptable in relation to
material planning considerations, with all significant planning matters having
been appropriately, or adequately, addressed.
Tina
Henning-Stevens - who ran and managed the facility -considered the development
to be necessary so as to be able to continue to provide a good quality standard
of service to those using it. The current facilities were gradually becoming
unfit for purpose so this replacement was essential to have. She and her staff
remained wholly committed to maintaining the service it had and this investment
would go a long way in helping to achieve that.
West Parley Parish Council had raised no
objection to the application.
The opportunity was then given for members
to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking
clarification of aspects so as to have a better understanding in coming to a
decision.
Some important points were raised, some of
which they considered still required clarification, were
·
What eco features might be able to feature in the development
·
How this more sustainable building would benefit those using it
·
What planting would be done in terms of screening
all of which officers were able to answer to
the satisfaction of the Committee.
Of importance was that officers considered there to be no material considerations which would warrant
refusal of the application and that this was the basis of the assessments made
and the recommendation before the Committee.
From debate, the Committee considered the
proposal to be acceptable and would provide for a more sustainable, practical
and good facility in improving the lives of children that was able to continue
offering the good quality standard of service for which it had become known.
Having had the opportunity to discuss the
merits of the application and an
understanding of all this entailed; having
taken into account the officer’s report
and presentation; and what they had heard at
the meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Barry Goringe and seconded by
Councillor Shane Bartlett, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed –
unanimously - to grant permission, subject to the conditions and informative
noted set out in paragraph 17 of the officer’s report.
Resolved
That application P/FUL/2021/04102
be grated planning permission subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 17
o the report.
Reasons for Decision
The proposal would be of public benefit by
replacing the existing prefabricated nursery building with a more modern
structure
• The location was considered to be sustainable,
and the proposal was acceptable in its scale, design, materials and visual
impact.
• There was not considered to be any
significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.
• There were no adverse landscape impacts.
• There would be no additional traffic
movements generated by the development.
• There were no material considerations
which would warrant refusal of this application
P/FUL/2021/03912- Hayeswood
First School, Cutlers Place, Colehill – Formation of a new vehicle entrance,
relocate existing pedestrian entrance and reformation of the car parking and
car park spaces. New access ramp, fencing and gates.
The
Committee considered application P/FUL/2021/03912
for the formation of a new vehicle entrance, relocate existing pedestrian entrance
and reformation of the car parking and car park spaces, together with a new
access ramp, fencing and gates at Hayeswood First
School, Cutlers Place, Colehill. Officer’s confirmed that this application
required a Committee decision given that it was a Council led application.
With the aid of a visual
presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided
context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the
development were; how these were to be progressed; and what this entailed. The
presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed
design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character
the area, taking into account the policies against which this application was
being assessed.
Plans and photographs provided
an illustration of how the improvement works would take place and look –
including its design, configuration and appearance; access and highway
considerations; environmental and land management considerations; and the
development’s setting within that part of Colehill.
Officers showed the development’s
relationship with other adjacent residential
development, with the characteristics and
topography of the site being shown. Views into the site and around it was
shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.
The need for the improvement works was on the grounds of safety, access and
traffic flows.
What assessment had been made in the
officer’s coming to their recommendation were drawn to the attention of the
Committee, with the proposal being considered to be acceptable in relation to
material planning considerations, with all significant planning matters having
been appropriately, or adequately, addressed.
Colehill Parish Council fully supported the application.
The opportunity was then given for members
to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking
clarification of aspects so as to have a better understanding in coming to a
decision.
Some important points were raised, some of
which they considered still required clarification, were
·
What eco features might be able to feature in the development
·
How this more sustainable building would benefit those using it
·
What planting would be done in terms of screening
all of which officers were able to answer to
the satisfaction of the Committee.
Of importance was that officers considered there to be no material considerations which would warrant
refusal of the application and that this was the basis of the assessments made
and the recommendation before the Committee.
From debate, the Committee considered the
proposal to be acceptable and would provide for a more sustainable and safer
route into the school in avoiding conflict between traffic and persons.
Having had the opportunity to discuss the
merits of the application and an
understanding of all this entailed; having
taken into account the officer’s report
and presentation; and what they had heard at
the meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by
Councillor David Morgan, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed –
unanimously - to grant permission, subject to the conditions and informative
noted set out in paragraph 17 of the officer’s report.
Resolved
That planning
permission in respect of application P/FUL/2021/03912
be granted, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 17 of the report.
Reasons
for Decisions
• The
proposal will be of public benefit as it re-routes the accessible pedestrian
route away from vehicle routes into and out of the school site.
• The
location is considered to be sustainable and the proposal is acceptable in
terms of its design and general visual impact.
•
There is not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential
amenity, landscape or highway safety
• There are no material
considerations which would warrant refusal of this application.
Supporting documents: