Agenda item

Application Ref.

Address

Agenda ref.

Page no.

6/2019/0126

The Paddock, Barrow Hill, Bere Regis

Item 6

31

Update(s):

Comments received from Bere Regis Parish Council;

“Bere Regis Parish Council are disappointed that Officers are recommending this application for approval.

This statement provides background to the planning situation and provides compelling reasons as to why this planning application should be refused.

Background - The Parish Council was originally opposed to any development taking place on the site. This opinion was based on the poor rating that the site achieved in an assessment carried out as part of the Neighbourhood Plan consultations in 2012, which highlighted poor access, potential for damage to be caused to ecological and archaeological features locally, together with high potential for conflict with neighbouring properties. At that time, the Highways Department at DCC would not support development on the site, as they did not want to see any increase in traffic using the difficult junction at the bottom of Butt Lane or the junction between Butt Lane and Tower Hill.

The parish council were subsequently put under pressure by PDC to increase the number of new dwellings to be provided by the Neighbourhood Plan. Consequently, the parish council had to re-consider sites that had previously been rejected.

As a way of allowing an additional three or four dwellings to be built close to the village centre, the parish council accepted that limited development on this site might be allowed, provided that adequate protection could be given to the Conservation Area; neighbouring properties; the rich wildlife meadow, and; the substantial archery butts that lie to the north.

Consequently, the Neighbourhood Plan, which has been agreed through consultation with all relevant statutory bodies including the conservation officer and highways department, allows for development of the site strictly on the following basis:

•         Excavation of the site so that new buildings are set at Tower Hill street level.

•         Development with a terrace or semi-detached dwellings to make best use of the available space.

•         All construction and future vehicle movements to be taken from Tower Hill, with no vehicular access allowed from Barrow Hill.

•         The existing hedge (which only dates from the 1960s and is not worthy of protection as suggested by the conservation officer) to be repositioned along the back of the development site.

Planning Policy - You will be aware that planning decisions in this country need to be based on local and national planning documents. In our opinion, the relevant documents in determining this planning application comprise the Neighbourhood Plan, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Design Guidelines (September 2019). It seems that all of these documents have been ignored by the applicant, and by the planning officers.

 Effect of the Neighbourhood Plan - This site lies outside of the settlement boundary unless development proposals are in compliance with the Neighbourhood Plan. Consequently, it is our case that any development of the site can only take place if the proposals are in accordance with the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. The proposed design and access are not in accordance with the neighbourhood plan, so planning permission should be refused.

Effect of the NPPF - This planning application ignores advice in section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which notes that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; creates better places in which to live and work, and; helps make development acceptable to communities.

Paragraph 127 of the NPPF requires that new developments should:

•         Function well.

•         Be visually attractive as a result of good architecture.

•         Be sympathetic to local character and history.

•         Help to establish or maintain a strong sense of place, and

•         Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount of development.

This planning application fails to comply with any of the requirements of the NPPF, and is therefore contrary to national planning policy.

Effect of Design Guidelines - The National Design Guidelines published in September 2019 have been introduced to reinforce design policies set out in the NPPF. These guidelines seek to promote good design, and they require the layout and design of buildings to respond to existing local character, while producing compact forms of development that make efficient use of land.

Again, the proposals currently before you fail to take account of design guidelines in that document.

Planning Officers Report - We understand from a meeting with the planning officers that they are recommending that this planning application be approved. Their recommendation is apparently based on no objection having been raised by the highways department, and because the Conservation Officer has suggested that the roadside hedge should be retained. However, the parish council consider this recommendation to be fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:

•         At a site meeting with the highways officer he admitted that he had not previously visited the site and he was unaware of the requirements of the Neighbourhood Plan. He admitted that a level access off Tower Hill would be preferable to taking access off Barrow Hill

•         As already noted, the Conservation Officer is incorrect in suggesting that the roadside hedge requires protection, as it is relatively young and not associated with the old network of green lanes.

•         We are surprised that a Conservation Officer is supporting a layout and design that is totally out of keeping with the Conservation Area, when the Neighbourhood Plan, NPPF and National Design Guidelines all require a high standard of design for new developments. The current proposals are not sympathetic to the local character and fail to optimise use of the site.

•         The planning officers have failed to take appropriate notice of the Neighbourhood Plan or national planning policy and design guidelines.

•         Overall, the proposal fails to respect the Conservation Area; neighbouring properties; the rich wildlife meadow, and; the archery butts.

Conclusions - By now you might appreciate that the parish council feel passionately that the Neighbourhood Plan needs to be upheld, otherwise it becomes worthless. We also feel strongly that appropriate consideration be given to national design guidelines and national planning policy, which have huge relevance when looking to develop a sensitive site on the edge of the Conservation Area.

Is Localism genuinely valued? If so, this planning application needs to be determined strictly in accordance with the neighbourhood plan.

 If you do not intend to uphold localism, then this will have far-reaching implications, not just through Dorset but also for the rest of the country.

But, irrespective of whether or not you intend to take notice of the neighbourhood plan, you also need to ask yourselves whether you intend to determine this planning application in accordance with national planning policy and guidance as previously detailed?

It is our considered opinion, that the planning application before you fails to meet the requirements of local or national planning policy, and planning permission should be refused.”

NB Plans were included with these comments. But the source and whether accurate has not be verified and these are not for consideration.

Comments made by Cllr. Peter Wharf (Ward Member West Purbeck)

“I am unable to make the meeting but would make the following observations about the Bere  Regis application that was the subject of your site visit.

The site was specifically covered by the Neighbourhood Plan which was many years in the making and was emphatically supported in the recent referendum. The plan was an excellent and well thought document which recommended more housing than was in the original local plan. However the access for this site, which was approved in the NP, was changed by Highways DCC without informing the Parish Council or myself. This fundamentally changes the nature of the application and should not be allowed. Why have a NP if they can be ignored with impunity? It is not, as some are implying, a minor point. It was critical to the Parish Council and to myself.

For that reason I request you refuse this application for non conformity with the agreed Neighbourhood Plan, which is a major material planning consideration.”

Application Ref.

Address

Agenda ref.

Page no.

6/2019/0337

Misty Cottage Worth Matravers

Item 7

55

Additional Statement of Worth Matravers Parish Council - included on Update Sheet of 4 December 2019 – still valid

This site is within the Worth Matravers Conservation Area.

The Parish Council, now the third tier of elected government in England, raises the following additional issues. Its concerns remain that the Officers report and the incorporated views of the new DC planning consultant do not reflect the accepted statutory requirement to improve and enhance the existing Conservation areas of Worth Matravers village.

It has never been acceptable in professional planning circles to state that a new, additional rather than replacement, proposal can be approved if it does not create any more harm than the existing extension. Two wrongs never make a right. Despite the accepted extensive and longer distance views of the rear gardens of this group of properties the proposed rear extension is now closer to the boundary of the next door property. It includes an additional blank flank wall 13 foot high on ground significantly higher than the ground level of the adjacent listed building. It must have a substantial and adverse impact on the listed building and an adverse visual impact as seen from the historic village green in the centre of the conservation area. It would be the first flat roof proposal for the centre of this historic conservation area currently comprised totally of cascading different height ridge roof features.

Members of the Planning Committee should be aware that its new consultant is from North Norfolk. His advice however is totally contrary to the current North Norfolk District Council Design Guide and Supplementary Planning Guidance which states.

What matters most when considering the scale of new development is not so much the absolute size of buildings, but their size relative to their surroundings.  Particularly with infill sites in sensitive areas, extreme care needs to be taken to ensure that ridge heights and overall proportions are compatible with adjoining buildings.

3.6.1 Extensions should be sited and designed to avoid any loss of light or privacy to adjoining properties. They should also not result in any overshadowing, tunneling or overbearing effects.

3.6.2 Flat roof forms are not normally acceptable.

The Parish Council does not accept your officers report .This proposed rear extension is of poor design and has a substantial impact on the adjacent listed building. As for the meaningless statement that the extension uses a sensitive use of the palette of materials to achieve a sympathetic blend this is just the sort of meaningless gobbledygook padding officers should have been instructed to avoid in their ‘professional’ reports to elected members.

The Officers inappropriate additional statement that indeed contrasting modern design is often the preferred choice for heritage locations is very worrying and must in principle be quickly rejected by the new Dorset Council. The committee should be mindful that this approach, the impact of which can occasionally and  regrettably be seen elsewhere in England, would totally desecrate many of the established village settings so much  a part of the Dorset village streetscenes and the AONB countryside generally.

Finally the extensive proposed roof lighting system makes mockery of the Dorset Council first recommendation to declare a Climate Emergency. This proposal will have significant adverse climate and environmental impact as Worth village is a dark nightime zone with no unnatural light sources. Those who know the village well will be aware that torches are a requirement to safely walk the streets of the centre after dark.

The Parish Council requests this application is refused and the applicant encouraged to submit a more sympathetic and acceptable proposal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments from Mr Cochrane (The Croft, Winspit Road, Worth Matravers);

“Chairman, Ladies and Gentleman –

Misty Cottage is situated almost immediately opposite a Grade I listed Norman church and adjacent to Grade II listed properties. Being at the very heart of one of Dorset’s most attractive and historic villages any development needs to be very sympathetically handled and comply with both National legislation and the Worth Matravers Conservation Area Appraisal Document.

The latter document defines the area as containing ‘buildings and structures which span several centuries’ and which ‘are considered to be of special architectural interest’. Till now its guidelines have been rigidly implemented. The proposed modern and intrusive extension ignores several of its key recommendations:

-         The existing extension to Misty Cottage is shown in the Appraisal Document as being of ‘negative’ quality, the lowest category. To suggest that by adding a further extension to an existing ‘negative’ extension does, I quote, ‘not harm this aspect any more than the existing extension’ is, of course, not true, it significantly increases the ‘negative’ footprint to more than that of the original property, it would dominate its Grade II neighbours and would become highly visible from the village green.

-         The document also draws particular attention to the historic roofing style, the use of rooflights and traditional styles of doors and windows. The norm is for traditional stone roofs  – no flat roofs or sedum covered roofs have been permitted since the introduction of the Appraisal Document. Furthermore recent Government Guidance on Light Pollution states ‘..... new lighting would be conspicuously out of keeping with local nocturnal light levels, making it desirable to minimise or avoid new lighting’.

National Legislation defines Conservation Areas as ‘areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which is desirable to preserve or enhance’. The National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 16 Paragraph 192 requires that development affecting heritage assets should make ‘a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness’. Apart from enhancing the amenities of Misty Cottage this application fails to demonstrate how it meets any of these requirements. It could certainly not be justified on the basis of providing additional housing, it is purely the indulgence of the applicants (who have only recently moved to the village) at considerable impact to the style and character of the village as a whole and contrary to the key principles of the Conservation Area and the Appraisal Document, which has previously prevented such minor alterations as the building of a porch at Cobblers Cottage and the installation a rear dormer window at Willow Cottage.

Finally, the Appraisal Document concludes with the words ‘it is important to raise awareness amongst the public of both the existence of the Conservation Area.....’, I did not expect to find that your own Design and Conservation consultant was unaware of the document when he made his original report. The advice he has subsequently given appears to be a matter of personal opinion rather than compliance with the various regulations.

If approved, this application would be contrary to previous planning guidelines and the Appraisal Document and would represent a complete change to planning policy within our conservation area. If permitted we could expect to see applications for similar extensions in both this and other conservation areas eroding the unique character of many of our villages.

As Councillors in a sensitive area legislation requires that you pay ‘special regard to prevailing patterns of height, mass and use of materials’. This application does not appear to conform to this requirement. I urge you to reject this application.”

-------------------------------------------------------

Comments from Mr Arnold;

“We live at Post Office Cottage in our only home; we’re permanent residents of the small village of Worth Matravers.

We’re about 25 metres away from Misty Cottage, so you could say we’re not personally or directly affected.  But we run a B&B right by the village green, so our interests are in maintaining the heritage assets in the conservation area - for our benefit, but also for the many guests and visitors to this area, who come here to see the pond and the village green in a setting surrounded by old Purbeck stone buildings with stone walls, small square windows, and pitched stone roofs.  The rear of Misty Cottage is visible from the green.

There’s plenty of evidence to support a revision of the plans, so I’m hoping to appeal to our new neighbours - would they not be willing to consider making amendments to satisfy those they’ll be living alongside?  It’s not at all unreasonable to want to extend the living space but it would seem everyone in the vicinity objects to the size and design - the flat roof and elevated skylights mainly, which will be visible from the village green.

I’m not qualified to speak for what would be acceptable, but if the following compromises could be agreed, I think all parties could be reasonably happy:

No window on the end/east wall.

No skylights (quite unnecessary with all that glass frontage)

Move the east wall back 1.5 metres.

Introduce some sort of ‘mansard’ roof pitch to match the appearance of adjacent buildings.

As I said in my letter, some form of appropriate extension to the compact nature of Misty Cottage is supported.  But find a compromise that better suits the neighbours and the village itself.”

-----------------------------------------------

Comments from Mr Melville;

“Dear miss Nolan, thank you for the details re: Misty cottage, would love to be able to attend to put my 10 p worth about the failure of B.C. P. to “protect” a Dorset village that’s supposed to be in a “conservation “area, from your part time “historical buildings expert” (lives in Norfolk ) who is only to happy to ok such an outrageous planning application without even visiting site. Unlike said “expert” we have to work 5 days a week .....if  B.C.P. had any compassion for us Dorset people that live full time in these villages they would have maybe held the meeting in our village hall ( not Wimborne) and we would have been able to take time out in a lunch break, though sadly, I truly believe this council of ours is failing to listen yet again.”

Proposed additional condition,

The quarry details, size and coursing of the proposed Purbeck Stone for the external facing materials must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before they are used on the proposal. The development must then be implemented using the approved materials, sizes and coursing.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance of the development in the Conservation Area.