Agenda item

Demolish existing conservatory and garage/outbuilding, erect new garage/outbuilding and internal alterations.

Erect 4no detached dwellings with associated garages, access and landscaping.

The Case Officer, using a visual presentation with plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. It was noted that tree felling, and site clearance had occurred prior to the application; while the trees were not protected, they contributed to the character of the area. Pre-application advice had been sought, during which officers confirmed the principle of development was acceptable, though three-bedroom units were encouraged to meet need identified by the strategic housing market assessment (SHMA).

The submitted site plan considered objections from the Town Council and residents. It included a robust planting scheme with established trees to provide a transitional buffer between rural and developed land. While the Town Council identified a need for two-three-bedroom homes, the generous unit sizes and site context justified a departure from that guidance. Proposed materials and finishes were detailed, with finished floor levels and ridge heights slightly higher than existing dwellings. A site section demonstrated the relationship between Unit 4 and Candy’s Close, showing a similar design and roof profile to avoid any overbearing impact. No loss of sunlight was identified.

A separation of approximately 10m between existing and proposed dwellings was confirmed, supported by photographic evidence. Landscaping and boundary fencing formed a key part of the scheme. Existing floor plans and elevations of 113 Wimborne Road were presented. The Highways Team raised no concerns, noting the inclusion of a raised traffic calming platform and reliance on garage and driveway parking, with additional visitor spaces provided. The site was considered sustainably located within the settlement boundary. No significant harm was identified, and the recommendation was for approval, subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Ben Bolton, a local resident, objected to the proposal, stating the ecological report incorrectly claimed the site clearance was undertaken by the previous owner, when it was carried out by the developers. He raised concerns over the lack of a rural survey and limited access to sustainable transport, noting few local amenities and a reliance on cars, particularly for elderly residents and families with young children. He described the access lane to Wimborne Road as narrow and unsafe, referencing two previous accidents. He also cited flood risk due to high groundwater levels. Finally, he criticised the way the site was cleared, noting trees were destroyed without warning or regard for nearby families, raising concerns about the developer’s future conduct and lack of due diligence.

Jackie Bonham thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. She described the site as a previously thriving habitat, which had been suddenly cleared, causing damage. She noted the presence of protected and priority species, including orchids and bats, and stated that actions taken had resulted in habitat loss. Ms. Bonham emphasised the need to prioritise 2- and 3-bedroom homes and stressed that new developments must respect the character of the area. She urged officers to enforce biodiversity net gain and expressed that developers should be held accountable for the loss of mature trees, which she described as more than mere scenery.

Julian Biles raised serious concerns for family safety, noting that pedestrian and vehicle movements would occur just feet from their home. He highlighted that the narrow access was inadequately addressed and questioned how wheelchair and pushchair users would safely navigate the area. He emphasised that what works for one household would not be sufficient for multiple dwellings and stated that parking provisions were inadequate. He concluded that the development posed a threat.

The agent Ken Parke spoke in support of the proposal, noting the large site was currently occupied by a single dwelling. He described the scheme as well-designed, providing good-sized 2- and 3-bedroom houses with a sufficient layout that met policy requirements. Mr Parke acknowledged concerns about site clearance but confirmed no wrongdoing had occurred. He stated the proposal met biodiversity and highways requirements and highlighted that flood risk had been thoroughly assessed and was low. Development was expected to alleviate existing issues. He advised on energy efficiency and urged members to support the officer’s recommendation.

Cllr Duncan Sowry-House urged refusal of the proposal, stating it failed to reflect the character of the area. He noted mature trees had been removed and referenced NPPF Section 16 on environmental protection. He highlighted the devastating impact of site clearance on protected species and argued that developments should enhance local character, which this proposal did not.

The Local Ward Member raised significant access and safety concerns, stating this contradicted policy. He also cited surface water flooding risks, noting flooding had already occurred. Cllr Sowry-House concluded that the proposal undermined both local and national policies and respectfully urged the Committee to refuse permission.

Members questions and comments

• Clarified no space existed as indicated in the report.
• Raised concerns about inadequate site access and poor visibility splays.
• Questioned whether the track width was sufficient for refuse and emergency vehicles.
• Noted absence of a waste condition; requested submission of a waste management plan.
• Acknowledged the density of the scheme was appropriate to the area’s character.
• Cllr A Skeats Suggested consideration of a site visit.
• Presumed access track would remain a private drive; questioned whether Dorset Waste would collect from private drives.
• Raised concerns about compliance with building regulations.
• Noted several accidents had occurred on the existing road.
• Reported concerns from Parish Council, local ward member, and residents regarding biodiversity and access.
• Expressed no concerns over design but deemed access inadequate.
• Mentioned proximity of proposed access to another development’s access near the site entrance and potential conflict by adding an additional driveway.
• Noted track length of 50 metres.
• Questioned whether density was calculated by number of dwellings per hectare or footprint, noting inconsistency with the area.
• Requested clarification on ownership of land containing hedging adjacent to access.
• Accepted officer’s reasoning regarding overdevelopment

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to REFUSE the officer’s recommendation to grant as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Spencer Flower, and seconded by Cllr Andy Skeats, subject to inadequate access.

Decision: To refuse planning permission due to the proposed access. Due to its narrow width for a substantial length, was inadequate for the quantum of development proposed, would fail to provide safe access for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists and may lead to conflict due to the presence of other accesses close to the site frontage. The development was therefore contrary to policies KS11 and HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan 2014 and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.