Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

Lower on a Sunday eh officer noise is fine/ EHO

 And Noise consultatit main noise traffic

Oakdene closest I hgv in I hour a day

Shortell

Object to this 394 14 march 2020 7 – 9 none on Sunday to protect amenity and oakdene. To avaiod impact on standard of living dustnoise. Very busy already. Residents concerned already have  adetrememtal impact if extended extra noise genereated a significant negative impact. Volume of traffic increased at mommnet there is respite residents will loos enjoy homes and garden. Condition imposesd on wellbeing of residents and oakdene. Why the change.

SB it has passect critia in nppf document  condition 18 is difficult to weigh up. 2 major roads. Cant accept quite village. In modern age expectation light industrial site open for Sunday and BH trading. Impressed about noise assessment tht concerns addressed. Damage future economy of dorset and would restcit future occupents. No further material planning conditions to warrant refusal.

MD – not minded to support approval. As Ian Wilson said all issues considered at previous application amende hous struck a fair balance betewnn operators and residents .

Perceive some level of noise when enjoying gardens.

DT – no

Cb – no

 Be – no

Bt – no

TC – longmeadow industrrail estat closed on Sunday. Would garnting Sunday use create a precident?

NS – on own merits if another application received then on its own merits

Concerns that appeal and win as a lot of depbate a right thing in march as the same now.

AL – wording

The Committee considered application 3/19/1365/FUL for the erection of 14 commercial units for B1(b), B1(c) and B8 use, together with access and associated parking at land north of Casa Velha, Ringwood Road, Three Legged Cross to provide capacity for light industrial and storage businesses to complement the principle of new employment development to meet economic need. Whilst the application site had not been allocated for employment development in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 – Core Strategy, it was located within the urban area of Three Legged Cross and, as such, the principle of new employment development was generally acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant planning policy. With the aid of a visual presentation and having regard to the provisions of the Update Sheet, officers explained what the main proposals and planning issues of the development were; how these were to be progressed; and what the benefits of the development entailed. Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, dimensions, configuration and design of the development, with the presentation also confirming what the highways and access arrangements being proposed would be – in sharing the access with the Oakdene Nursing Home; what the landscaping and tree retention arrangements would be; how the units would look and their setting within that part of Three Legged Cross; and showed the development’s relationship with Oakdene Nursing Home, together with the characteristics of the surrounding area. In response to consultee comments and officer concerns, an amended application was submitted - which members were now being asked to consider - proposed that: · units be moved further away from Ringwood Road to allow existing vegetation to be retained and additional landscaping added, · units be moved away from the southern boundary, with additional landscaping added, · unit layout be revised and reconfigured and allow for the above changes, 9 · units fronting Ringwood Road to be reduced from 5 to 4 units and divided into one, separate larger unit and a block of 3, to improve management of the site, · eaves height of units to the south be reduced to the rear, to reduce bulk and impact on neighbouring amenity, · additional landscaping be provided to the western boundary. Given these revisions, it was considered that, on balance, the proposal was now acceptable and officers were now recommending that this application be approved. Formal consultation had generated objections from a number of local residents and the East Dorset Environmental Partnership (EDEP) concerned that the development would be out of keeping with the characteristics of the area; did not comply with the fundamental principles of the Core Strategy and prove to be a nuisance and cause a disturbance to neighbouring residential property and the adjacent Oakdene Nursing Home. Verwood Town Council objected on the grounds that the proposals were contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy (Part 1) 2014 in terms of layout; its site coverage having a detrimental impact on the residents of the adjacent nursing home, architectural style, scale, bulk, materials, landscaping, visual impact and relationship to nearby properties including minimising general disturbance to amenity. They echoed the views of the EDEP. The Committee then heard from the public speaker and one of the two local members. Giles Moir, the agent, supported the application, considering that there was a demand for such employment units, with evidence of the need for them. The configuration of the development and what landscaping was being proposed was considered to be acceptable, particularly with there being additional tree planting. Nuisance or disturbance would not be an issue in his view and there were sufficient access arrangements, with the increase job opportunities this development would bring being beneficial to the local economy. Councillor David Shortell - one of the two local members for West Moors and Three Legged Cross, and speaking on behalf of the other, Councillor Mike Dyer, too - objected to what was being proposed, considering that the development was not in keeping with or conducive to the characteristics of the area and would have a negative impact on neighbouring properties, with the activities which would take place on site – especially at night time - having an adverse effect on amenity and cause nuisance and disturbance to the tranquillity of Oakdeane Nursing Home and its residents. He also considered the access arrangements to be unacceptable. On that basis, he asked the Committee to refuse the application. The opportunity was given for members to ask questions of the presentation and on what they had heard. Officers confirmed that the revised application satisfactorily addressed what material planning considerations there were and 10 would benefit what capacity there was for new employment development to meet economic need. Some members considered this to not be the case and agreed with the Town Council and the local members’ view that the development was not in keeping with the characteristics of the area; would indeed have a negative impact on neighbouring properties, with its activities undoubtedly having an adverse effect on amenity and potentially causing nuisance and disturbance to the nursing home. Concerns were raised over whether parking arrangements would be adequate and how practical the shared access would be. Other Committee members considered the proposals to be acceptable and beneficial, as there was evidence of demand for such units and their need. It would also provide the opportunity for local employment and economic growth. Such mixed development, which was an acceptable feature of other towns like Verwood, reduced the need for excess travel and provided the scope for local employment. Although the access was to be shared, this was considered to be an adequate arrangement given the traffic movements anticipated.

Whilst having no direct bearing on the application mention was made that  an industaril estae of similar nature remained closed on Sundays and bank holidays so there was no reason why the case could be made for this being any different.

Those members considered that conditions and monitoring would address any concerns about nuisance or disturbance to residents if Oakdene Nursing Home, given the proposed use. The units were only to be used for light industry and storage, attracting businesses in those sectors. Moreover, there would be sufficient screening around the development to mitigate this. However, in recognising that some members had reservations about the effect this development could have on the nursing home, it was proposed, and agreed, that Condition 18 of any grant of permission should be amended to prevent operations, including deliveries, on Sundays and bank holidays. In doing so, the Committee considered that how this was managed in practice should be pragmatic. Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken into account the officer’s report and what they had heard at the meeting, the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the proposal entailed. Members considered it beneficial that this development would provide the opportunity for economic growth, reduce the need for excess travel and provide the scope for local employment. On that basis – and on being put to the vote – the Committee considered that the application should be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report - including the amendment of Condition 18 to prohibit operations, including deliveries, on Sundays and bank holidays - and having regard to the provisions of the Update Sheet.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken into account the officer’s report and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting; and the views of Councillor Bill Trite, the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the proposal entailed and the reasoning for this. The Committee considered that, notwithstanding the assessments made by officers that the proposal should be granted permission, they could not agree to what was being recommended on the basis that the site was too constrained for the development proposed, the building lines, internal layout and obscured glazing were contrived and did not meet the Local Plan policies. Before being put to the vote, the officer provided the proposer and seconder with an opportunity for them to accept a form of wording for refusal she had drafted. On that basis – and being proposed by Councillor Cherry Brooks and seconded by Councillor Alex Brenton - on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed 6:5 – the Chairman having voted - that the application should be refused. Resolved That planning application 6/2020/