PLANNING COMMITTEE 8 December 2015

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of Report: To consider the planning applications contained within the schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.

Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that:The applications contained in this Schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Development Management Manager’s recommendation.

Portfolio Holder: Councillor M Dyer (Environment)

Wards: Council-wide

Contact Officer: Giles Moir, Development Management Manager

2. APPLICATION SCHEDULE

No. Application No. Site Address Pg.1. 3/15/0429/FUL Land R/O The Glassblower, 71 High Street,

Wimborne12

2. 3/15/0476/FUL The Paddocks, Dorchester Road, Corfe Mullen 213. 3/15/0991/FUL Land South Of Potterne Park, Adjacent To Moors

Valley Country Park, Ashley Heath35

4. 3/15/1028/HOU 116 High Street, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne 43

Item Number 1 Ref: 3/15/0429/FUL

Proposal: Erection of 2 x 2 bedroom houses (pair of semi-detached houses) on land to the rear of The Glassblower including land to the west of the site being public open space.

Site Address: Land R/O The Glassblower, 71 High Street, Wimborne, for ESJA Properties Ltd

Site Notice expired: 11 July 2015Advert Expiry Date: 10th July 2015Nbr-Nfn expired: 2 July 2015

Parish Comments: Object - If approved the proposal will be detrimental to the amenity enjoyed by the intended occupants of these dwellings by reason of the restricted area around the buildings. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of this site.

Consultee Responses:County Highways Development Liaison Officer

The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION to the proposal.

To fight fires effectively the Fire and Rescue Service needs to be able to manoeuvre its equipment and appliances to within a specified distance of any premises. The applicant should be advised to consult with Building Control and Dorset Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that Fire Safety - Approved Document B of The Building Regulations 2000 - can be fully complied with.

EDDC Design And Conservation

This application seeks permission to build two, two storey semi-detached houses on the land directly behind the Glass Blower, the land also forms part of the designated heritage asset that is the Central Conservation Area of Wimborne. The building would be positioned 6.2m back from the boundary of the building at right angles. Proposed house No. 1 will be visible when looking down the alley from the High Street, and the rear of both will block views into the Conservation Area when viewing from the mill stream.

When considering new development which has the potential to harm the setting of a Listed Building, great weight must be given to preserving and conserving views to and from the asset. Inappropriate development in the setting of an asset can greatly harm the significance. The historic significance of an area can be sustained or enhanced if new buildings or extensions are carefully designed to respect their setting by virtue of their scale proportion, height, massing alignment and use of materials.

Presently when viewing the proposed site the eye is drawn around the curved façade of the listed building to open space and green landscape, a welcome escape from the urban massing of the street scene which contrast in a positive manner.

Likewise when viewing the street scene from the rear of the listed Building, presently there is an unspoilt view of different roof lines, and the imposing tower of the Minster which dominates the skyline from several key viewpoints, a key vista in the Conservation Area. Given the importance of the Minster and also the character of the historical development of this area and buildings, there is significance in these key viewpoints.

The proposed development would crowd this small space and dominant the view from the river, and likewise be an odd terminus of railings and brick down a side alley. Therefore the proposal will have an adverse effect on the setting the listed building, and Conservation Area, and I am unable to support the application.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

REASON: The proposed development will have an adverse effect on the setting of the Listed Building and views into and out of the Conservation Area.

EDDC Public Health - Housing And Pollution

Historically there were several noise problems associated with the Glassblower when it was The Bell public house. The problems were from amplified music inside the premises, noise spill from this music, and noise from people congregating outside to smoke and drink particularly late into the evening.

Now that the premises is a restaurant rather than a public house the same problems are potentially still there. Customers will still have to go outside to smoke, and live and amplified music can still be played on a licensed premise (under the Live Music Act) until 11pm. Whilst I appreciate the premises is well managed and these problems have not been reported since the premise changed use and reopened, it has to be accepted that the potential for these problems is still there. If the Glassblower was to change hands there is nothing to stop it being changed back to a noisier venue and run similar to before.

The new proposed houses are approximately 5 metres from the Glassblowers outside seating area and the

noise from people dining and smoking here until 11pm has a potential to cause an adverse impact on residents of these proposed dwellings.

These new dwellings have their master bedrooms (bedroom 1) facing the glassblower outside area.

I suggest, or perhaps you might decide to put an advisory on, that further mitigation should be proposed both in the management of the glassblowers outside area, and in the design of the proposed housing e.g. triple glazing, mechanical ventilation, arrangement / size of windows in the west elevation etc..

Officers Report:

This application has been brought to Committee at the request of Councillor David Morgan.

Wimborne Town Council object to the proposal as overdevelopment and detrimental to amenity and there has been one letter of representation requesting an archaeological watching brief if development is permitted.

Site Description

The Glassblowers is a Grade II listed former public house (Use Class A4) in the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area and was formerly named The Bell. The Design and Access Statement states the current use is as a restaurant (Use Class A3) Change of use from A4 to A3 is permitted under the current Use Classes Order. It sits on the eastern side of the High Street and has a linear plot which may echo an earlier burgage plot.

From the High Street there are views through to the bankside trees and bushes. The rearmost part of the site is reached via a pedestrian way on the northern side of the frontage and has an open area to the rear that appears to have been used as a beer garden and backs onto one of the side streams of the Allen (the Mill Stream).

On the northern side there is a comprehensive development nearing completion at the rear of Nos 57 to 69 comprising a terrace of three dwellings at the rear with a self-contained retail unit facing the pedestrian way between the High Street and Crown Mead all permitted under Application 11/0248. None of these buildings which have undergone development of their back plots are listed.

On the south side, Nos. 79 to 83 have had their rear plots infilled with two dwellings, which are called respectively Millstream Cottage and River Cottage.

The public house had been subject to renovation as a restaurant and has a recent single storey rear extension to provide improved facilities in connection with the recent refurbishment under planning applications 14/0399/COU and 14/0425/LBC. A timber fence over 2 metres high has been erected around the paved area immediately next to the pub which separates it from the access and the amenity area abutting the river to

the rear. This truncation and separation has a deleterious effect upon the setting of the listed building. The rear of the plot has been used temporarily as a yard in connection with the building out of three new dwellings to the north, under Application Ref: 3/11/248/FUL.

The Proposed Development

This application is to erect a pair of semi-detached dwellings in the rear of the plot. These would be of red brick under slate with a late C19th style, eaves on to the pub, with a full width M type roof to the rear. The pair would be 7 metres high to the ridge, 10 metres wide and 9 metres deep, with a square floorplan. The front elevation would be 6 metres from the rear of the recently extended single storey rear wing of the Glassblowers. The northernmost of the pair would have a rear amenity area of 8 metres in length, while the southern would have a rear garden 15 metres in length.

The submitted drawing shows the remainder of the rear garden of the northernmost unit contributing to a continuation of the riverside walk transferred to this Council by the owners of the development to the north. With the northernmost unit (Plot 1) this parcel of land is 7 metres deep reducing to 2.25 metres wide where it passes Plot 2.

The Agent has included Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Agreement to transfer the land at the rear to this Council for inclusion in the riverside walk, but this has not been completed. A copy of the Section 106 Agreement used to secure the land to the north as part of the riverside walk was also included. A completed unilateral agreement has been provided agreeing to a mitigation payment against any adverse effect upon Dorset Heathland of £3.048 plus an admin fee of £60.96 and a financial contribution of £3,315 towards the provision of affordable housing in lieu of provision on site in accordance with Policy LN3 in accordance with the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document.

Policy

The relevant Policies are HE1, HE2, WMC1, LN3 and ME2 of the Core Strategy, saved Policy DES2 of the Local Plan and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and this Council’s Housing and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document adopted April 2014.

Main Considerations

The main considerations are the effect of the proposal upon the setting of the listed building and the amenity of the surrounding conservation area, the design of the proposed dwellings, the impact of the Glassblowers Restaurant upon the proposed dwellings and the impact of the proposed dwellings on neighbouring properties.

Effect on the Listed Building and Conservation Area

The main consideration is the impact of the proposal on the Grade 2 Listed building of the Glassblowers restaurant which is a grade 2 listed building and the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area. This Council's Conservation Officer has supplied a full critique of the effect of the proposal on the heritage asset. The Agent's Heritage Statement refers to the contribution the front elevation of the Pub makes to the street

scene, with its dressy C18th façade. Of equal value is the punctuation made by the access in the continuous built form from the walk through to Crown Mead to the junction with East Street and the unexpected middle distant view of the bankside vegetation of the mill stream. This window on the river is a useful reminder of the scale of the town and the part the Allen and its braids play in the townscape.

The Conservation Officer notes the view from the back of the site shows the Minster over the High Street framed by the access. This vista is not available from the adjoining plots and any view of the Minster from an extension of the riverside walk would be blocked by this development.

The former Bell pub and hotel has been a marginal business in the past. The listed status has limited the changes that can be made internally without harming its historic interest. The recent refurbishment is welcomed as it places the asset in a position where its future is more assured. The long rear amenity space has been used as a drinking area in the past made more pleasant by its setting by the mill stream. The proximity of running water has been incorporated into the customer offer at other licensed premises such as The Olive Branch nearby and there seems to be no hindrance to using this to enhance the customer experience at this site. The current palisade fencing surrounding the paved area around the building does nothing to enhance its setting and creates an artificial separation between the building and its setting.

Paragraph 126 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities (LPA's) to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and put them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. Para.129 continues that LPA's should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Policy HE1 of the Core Strategy 'Valuing and Conserving our Historic Environment'states;

'Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and will be conserved and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and importance locally to the wider social, cultural and economic environment. The significance of all heritage assets and their settings (both designated and non-designated) will be protected and enhanced especially elements of the historic environment which contribute to the distinct identity of Christchurch and East Dorset. Such key historic elements include the market towns of Wimborne Minster and Christchurch; Christchurch Quay; Highcliffe and Christchurch Castles; 11th Century Christchurch Priory Church and Saxon Mill; site of civil war siege in 1645; the setting of Wimborne Minster;'

Policy WMC1 sets out the vision for Wimborne and applies to this site within the Town Centre. The Applicants have offered a continuation of the riverside walk as a planning gain for this development, although the Unilateral Undertaking for this element has not be completed and signed. While providing a continuation of the riverside walk would

comply with Criterion 9 of Policy WMC1, there is also a conflict with Criterion 6 which states the townscape quality of the town centre will be enhanced, and that only high quality development proposals that respect and enhance the local character and improve ease of movement and legibility will be permitted.

Design

Regarding the context of the proposed design, the three units to the north of the site facing the public walkway have their 'public' elevation facing east towards the riverside walk, in the form of a projecting first floor square bay with an oversailing rendered 45 degree gable. Their frontages are effectively buried in the rear elements of the street frontage buildings. These narrow steep gables can be seen on the rear of the listed building and elsewhere on the rear elevations in the surrounding area.

With this proposal the rear roof is slacker at 40 degrees with the rear elevation having a more 'service' appearance at first floor level which could be anticipated, but as these are effectively dual aspect dwellings this is a consideration in this location. The three dwellings to the north will have the rear boundary marked by a 1.8m brick wall which shields domestic paraphernalia from the proposed riverside walk. This proposal appears to show fencing on the rear boundary which is less permanent and less attractive in this urban setting. A similar brick wall to the adjacent development would be better subject to an appropriate methodology, should approval be granted, regarding any effect upon the nearby Western Red Cedar. This has been negotiated at this stage due to the recommendation for refusal.

Turning to the front elevation, this will be visible from the High Street. The front elevation is simple if plain. It would be partly glimpsed at the end of the access and the opportunity could have been taken to introduce a stronger form with more visual interest such as seen on the rear elevations of the adjoining development, as with the proposed front railing it appears suburban in character.

Impact on amenities of proposed dwellings from the Glassblowers Restaurant

The kitchens and front bedrooms will be positioned only 4.4m from the existing palisade fencing around the drinking and eating area at the rear of the Glassblowers. This Council has had recent complaints from neighbours regarding noise and disturbance from the use of an outside drinking area at the Coach and Horses PH in Poole Road, Wimborne. At that site the drinking area is 10m from the nearest dwelling and across Allen Road, over twice the separation with this application. With the smoking ban outside areas tend to be used by smokers regardless of the weather and it is likely this area will be used on a regular basis. While the current use may generate less noise than the previous use this distance may not be sufficient to protect the amenity of the occupants when windows are open in warm weather.

Under the present licensing regime live music can be played on licensed premises without the need for a licence until 11.00 pm and while the present management may not utilise this option there is no guarantee that a change of ownership may not bring about a change in the way the establishment is operated. The recently completed dwellings to the north have their entrances hard against the service areas of the High Street but their future occupants will not face the challenging environment of the residents of these units.

Impact from proposed dwellings on Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

The proposed semi-detached properties would sit between the infill development of three properties to the north, currently under construction and with Millstream Cottage to the south.

At first floor level primary bedroom windows are proposed to front and rear to ensure the properties proposed do not overlook adjoining properties or cause loss of amenity. However, facing to the north and to the south there is one secondary window to bedrooms in the proposed dwellings. These will face the side wall of properties to the north and south. If permission were to be granted for this proposal then obscure glazing would be required to both these windows to protect the amenities of the adjoining dwellings. This could be subject to condition should Members resolve to approve the scheme.

Further Considerations

Flood RiskThe Applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment relating to the land to the immediate north and has based the finished floor levels on this data, which indicates that existing flood defences are adequate to prevent flooding.

Trees

An Arboricultural Report has also been submitted regarding the large Western Red Cedar on the adjacent plot which indicates that it could be retained and adequately protected.

Parking

No parking spaces are provided for the two dwellings but this is acceptable within this town centre location and no objection is received from the County Highways Officer.

Affordable Housing

An affordable housing contribution has been offered in a viability appraisal undertaken by the applicant. Following consultation with Planning Policy, the viability appraisal was accepted as submitted, given the need to secure a 17% profit and to ensure the scheme is viable when offsetting all the costs of the development. Planning Policy has therefore confirmed that the proposed contribution is in accordance with Policy LN3 of the Core Strategy and the methodology set out in the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document. The Unilateral Undertaking has been signed and completed to address the affordable housing contribution.

Heathland

A completed unilateral agreement has been provided agreeing to a mitigation payment against any adverse effect upon Dorset Heathland to satisfy policy ME2 of the Core Strategy.

Riverside Walkway

Whilst the applicant has also offered a draft Unilateral Undertaking for the transfer of the land alongside the River Allen to the Council for a continuation of a public walkway, the Council has not requested the applicant to provide a signed copy of the Unilateral Undertaking because this would not offer sufficient benefit to the scheme to change the recommendation of refusal due to the harm from the dwellings proposed the Listed Building and Conservation Area. However, should Members resolve to approve the scheme it would be recommended to pursue the completion of the Unilateral Undertaking in this regard prior to the issuing of any decision.

Conclusion

Previous Central Government guidance opined that the best use for a historic asset was the one it was originally built for and this still appears to be self-evident. The proposed dwellings are of an innocuous design but are not so outstanding as to justify the truncation of the setting of this listed building and the loss of both the view towards the mill stream from the High Street or the striking view back from the rear of the plot towards the Minster Towers, which have been identified by the Conservation Officer. This view would be lost from any future extension of the riverside walk across the plot by this development, while the view of the rear of the units would be a poor substitute. These issues did not arise with the development to the north, firstly because the host building was not listed and secondly because it did not obscure any significant view. In that instance the infilling was acceptable in principle with the public gain of the extension of the riverside walk. Here the compliance with the latter part of Criterion 6 is considered insufficient to justify the harm from the truncation of this listed building and the less than optimum living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

In addition to the contribution the existing generous curtilage makes to the setting of the listed building, it also contributes to the viability of the unit. The existing pleasant setting could be used to improve the experience of customers to the restaurant, and does not preclude the incorporation of the rearmost part of the site into the riverside walk on a voluntary basis. The garden could be segregated from the riverside walk by a visually porous barrier such as hairpin railings that could be used to close off the garden from the walk when the business is not open and may actually increase the customer footfall by providing another access, as seen at The Olive Branch. The limiting effect of the present reduction in the useable curtilage may also affect the intrinsic value and future funding of the heritage asset.

A further consideration is the effect the existing palisade fencing around the outside eating and drinking area has on the setting of the listed building. This is not permitted development as it is within the curtilage of a listed building. Should a retrospective planning application be made at present it is unlikely to receive a positive recommendation due to the harmful division of the listed building from its curtilage and its excessive height and over prominent appearance. However, if approved, the construction of these two dwellings would require some form of barrier between their curtilage and access and the outside area of the restaurant in order to make living conditions tolerable, particularly given its potential disturbance, and any necessary barrier would be equally harmful to the setting of the listed building.

For the above reasons the proposal is considered to fail to accord with Policy HE1 and HE2 of the Core Strategy and Paragraphs 126 and 129 of the NPPF.

The kitchen and front bedroom windows of the proposed dwellings would be 4.4 metres from the outside area of the restaurant. Given the experience on other sites it is highly unlikely this will be sufficient separation to preserve the amenities of future occupiers, with the outside seating area being most used in warm weather when the occupants of the dwellings may wish to open windows. For this reason the proposal fails to accord with Saved Policy DES2 of the Local Plan which states developments will not be permitted which will either impose or suffer unacceptable impacts on or from existing or likely future development or land uses in terms of noise, smell, lighting or disturbance or other pollution.

Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

Reasons:-

1 The proposal would result in the unacceptable truncation of the historic plot of this listed building, by the construction of two dwellings within 6 metres of the rear elevation, which would separate the building from its original curtilage. Furthermore, in addition to the effect on the setting of the listed building by the construction of two dwellings in such close proximity, the proposal would require the retention of existing fencing or construction of an alternative barrier to ameliorate the harm to the living conditions of future occupants from the activities associated with the use of this listed building as a restaurant, which would be further harmful to its setting, contrary to Policy HE1 and HE2 of the Core Strategy, and the guidance contained in Paragraphs 64,126 and 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The proposal would result in the loss and blocking of significant views from the High Street towards the Mill Stream and from the rearmost part of the site towards the towers of Wimborne Minster. The loss of these townscape views would be harmful to the setting of this listed building and the amenity of the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area, contrary to Policy HE1 of the Core Strategy and Paragraphs 126 and 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 The habitable rooms of the proposed dwellings would be within 5 metres of the outside eating and drinking area of the existing building. Due to this proximity it would not be possible to install or provide any effective mitigation from the noise and activity associated with this use to the occupiers of the dwellings. For this reason the proposal fails to accord with saved Policy DES2 of the Local Plan which states that developments will not be permitted which will either impose or suffer unacceptable impacts on or from existing or likely future development or land uses in terms of noise, smell, lighting or disturbance or other pollution.

Informatives:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to REFUSE the application:The applicant/ agent did not take the opportunity to enter into pre-application discussions.

2 This Application was refused against the following Drawing: 2014-11-01.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy 2014 were taken into account. Saved policies within the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, were also taken into account. These include specifically the following policies: HE1, HE2, LN3, ME2 and WMC1.

Item Number 2 Ref: 3/15/0476/FUL

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building and construction of a 27 bedroom hotel with associated parking, access and landscaping (revised scheme)

Site Address: The Paddocks, Dorchester Road, Corfe Mullen, for Site Notice expired: 24th June 2015Nbr-Nfn expired: 18th June 2015

Parish Comments: No Objection

Consultee Responses:

Highways Agency Referring to the notification of a planning application dated 19 November 2015 your reference 3/15/0476/FUL in connection with the A31 and erection of a 27 bedroom hotel at the Paddocks, Dorchester Road, Corfe Mullen, Dorset, notice is hereby given that Highways England's formal recommendation is that we:

offer no objection;

Re Highways Act Section 175B:Not relevant as no new access is being proposed along the common boundary between the planning site and the SRN

Where we give consent (a), under Section 175B, this is applicable only to the particular planning application and its accompanying documents, including agreed junction designs. This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence.

Should you disagree with this recommendation you must consult the Secretary of State for Transport, as per the Town and Country Planning (Development Affecting Trunk Roads) Direction 2015, via transportplanning@dft.gsi.gov.uk.

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND ("we") has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.

This response represents our formal recommendations with regard to planning application 3/15/0476/FUL and has been prepared by the Asset Manager for Dorset.

We have undertaken a review of the relevant documents supporting the planning application to ensure compliance with the current policies of the Secretary of State as set out in DfT Circular 02/2013 "The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development" and the DCLG National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Statement of Reasons

The current proposal for a 27 bedroom hotel site is a resubmission of proposals previously considered by us as the Highways Agency in 2013 and 2014. The proposals will utilise an existing access onto the trunk road.Our view remains that we have no objection in principle to the proposed hotel development but we would need to ensure that the operation of the trunk road is protected during the demolition and construction phases of the development.

Recommendation

Highways England therefore recommends that the following condition is attached to any consent granted to the effect that:

During the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of the development hereby permitted, no loading, unloading, or parking of demolition or construction related vehicles shall be permitted on the A31 trunk road. Reason: to maintain the safety and free flow of traffic on the A31 trunk road.

EDDC Public Health - Housing And Pollution

I have looked at the plans for the above and should like to make the following comments.Our officers recall some fly and odour complaints in the vicinity due to the adjacent sewage works. Therefore we agree with Wessex Waters view that odour and fly complaint might result if a hotel was to be built here. These sort of issues are very difficult to design out.

If permission is granted, we would also need our standard contaminated land condition applied.

Given the proximity of the sewage works to the proposed hotel there is no doubt that it will have an adverse impact on staff and customers of the hotel. The differences in agreement over suitability of the assessment are not so relevant here as we are talking about the amount of adverse impact, not whether there will be an adverse impact or not.

Wessex Water Services Ltd The proposed hotel sits on the boundary of Wessex Water's sewage treatment works. We consider the proposals unacceptable in such close proximity to our works with potential for odour and fly issues.

We do not believe the application has given appropriate consideration of these issues in accordance with PPG on Air Quality (ID 32) and IAQMs Guidance on the Assessment of Odour for Planning. The applicant should contact Wessex Water to agree the scope of a suitable assessment to appraise the impact of odour and fly nuisance. Wessex Water will normally object to any sensitive development within a 3 m3 EOU contour (determined by appraisal).

If the odour issues are resolved it is likely that the proposals will require long off site links to drainage and

water supply infrastructure.Buildings above 2 storeys will require on site boosted water supply storage.Surface water drainage should be in accordance with NPPF Guidance and Building Regulations Hierarchy.

EDDC Tree Section There are a couple of trees to the rear of the existing building that are not of sufficient form or quality to consider to be covered by a tree preservation order. I suggest that better trees could be planted as part of a landscape scheme should the application be granted.No objections

Officers Report:

IntroductionThis application comes before Members due to the 12 letters in support of the proposed hotel as it will provide accommodation for tourists to the area.Site Description

The site is situated in an area which, identified as being within the South East Dorset Green Belt. Land on the south side of the A31(T) is generally identified as an area of great landscape value and includes a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI).

The application site is situated on the south side of the A31(T) and comprises a detached residential bungalow centrally positioned on the site and within a defined residential curtilage. The application site also includes an adjacent car park, presently serving an existing café on the far side of the car park, including vehicular access with deceleration lane off the highway. Vehicular access to the bungalow is achieved through this car park via an entrance through its western boundary. To the west of the café is a petrol filling station whilst to the east of the application site is a caravan sales area.

This 3 bedroom bungalow has a particularly low pitched/hipped roof with attached double garage on its eastern side. The property lies behind a deep highway verge and frontage screen hedge. Behind the hedge is an expansive surfaced apron providing car parking and manoeuvring space that wraps around the flanks of the property. The bungalow has a slab level and ridge height more than 1.5 metres and approaching 7 metres respectively above road level.

Proposal

This full planning application seeks permission to demolish the existing bungalow with attached garage which has a 29 metre frontage to the highway. Thereafter ground levels upon and around the footprint of that former bungalow will be lowered by a matter of 1.9 metres or so with retaining walls to the flanks rising to about 1.6 metres toward the rear of the site with retaining wall approaching 2.8 metres high at a distance of 0.5 metres from the sites rear boundary.

Within this gash in the ground it is planned to erect a two storey building with ridge height some 0.7 metres higher than the existing bungalow. To achieve this comparative

height the proposals involve the erection of two x two storey buildings with road frontage of approaching 36 metres linked by a centrally positioned single storey flat roofed reception/lobby area. Each two storey building would be some 16 metres wide and not more than 5 metre deep and have a similar but not identical design with the overall premises appearing as two detached buildings when viewed from the road. The building would have a standard pitched roof and tiled construction when viewed from all but the rear elevation where flat roofed elements are hidden behind dummy pitched roofs. The ridge of the building running parallel to the road would be brought forward towards the road by 3.5 metres from its current position.

The proposed hotel would contain 27 bedrooms with individual en-suites and reception desk, lifts and limited associated facilities but will not include dining facilities for it is anticipated that guests will take advantage of the adjacent café some 75 metres distant to the west.

Parking for up to 16 cars will be provided within the curtilage of the current dwelling either to the front or eastern side with a further 4 spaces accommodated at the south east side of the current car park serving the café. All servicing arrangements will remain as at present.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and indicative landscape scheme accompanies the submission which explains that the existing frontage hedgerow would be retained where it is still healthy and replaced to the west and east. In addition the hedgerow would be extended along the frontage of the car park whilst not interfering with required sight lines and to the rear of the car park and to the east to replace an existing poor quality hedge. Further native trees and new native hedgerows are planned inside the frontage hedgerow along the sites eastern boundary. Finally, additional hedging and tree planting is proposed to the southern edge of the car park serving the existing café The LVIA explains that the likely effects of the development on short range views have been assessed as either neutral or beneficial whilst the likely effects from the long range views in the higher quality rural landscape to the north have been assessed as negligible or slightly beneficial.

Overall the LVIA states that the proposals represent an opportunity to improve local landscape character by upgrading existing development both inside the site and beyond the boundaries without detriment to the value of the Green Belt. It is recognised that the footprint and ridge height of the proposed building will be virtually no greater than that for which permission was granted in November 2013 and referred to below, but at the same time it must also be borne in mind that overall the proposed floor space would double.

An Ecological extended Phase 1 habitat survey has been submitted. This confirms that there is no evidence of bat activity in the roof space and no suitable crevice habitat externally. There is high potential for common reptiles and amphibians in the south east corner of the site. Nesting birds are also likely to be present. It is recommended that the process of site clearance be supervised by a licensed reptile ecologist.

Finally, a Tourism Assessment accompanies this application that concludes, amongst other things, that the East Dorset Core Strategy confirms support for the provision of new hotels in the District and this, together with the relative lack of hotel

accommodation within the Wimborne area, leads the applicant to a conclusion that there is an identifiable need for additional accommodation such as this in the Borough.

Relevant site history

The parcel of land between the Roadside café and the adjoining bungalow has beenthe subject of several planning applications for a change of use which until January2011 have all been refused.

An application for the change of use of land within a residential curtilage along with a landscaped area to create a car park extension for the cafe was refused on 2 November 2009 on the grounds of jeopardising the openness of the Green Belt, and the impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining bungalow (Local Authority reference 3/09/0783/COU). This was an identical scheme to an application which was refused on 28 July 2009 (Local Authority reference 3/09/ 0424).

Enforcement Notices were subsequently served regarding the unauthorised area of hardstanding. The two enforcement notices were issued on 20 January 2010, to take effect on 22 February 2010 and to be complied with by 22 May 2010. Notice A regarding land at and adjoining the Roadside Café concerned the breach of planning permission. It alleged without the benefit of planning permission the unauthorised extension of an area of hardstanding and the unauthorised creation of an area of hardstanding which it appeared to the Council had been a breach that had occurred within the last four years.

Notice B on the same land alleged the unauthorised change of use of an area of open land to an area used for the parking of motor vehicles associated with the Roadside Café. In addition, it included the unauthorised change of use of part of the residential curtilage associated with the adjacent dwelling to an area for the parking of motor vehicles associated with the Roadside Café. It appeared to the Council that the above breach of planning control had occurred within the last ten years. It should be noted that no appeal was lodged against these enforcement notices. Meanwhile, the Council had agreed to take no further action pending the results of the subsequent application.

This application was submitted for the change of use to land to create vehicle parking and manoeuvring area and the reconfiguration of existing parking and hard and soft landscaping proposals between the Roadside Café and the bungalow (Ref 3/10/0148). This application was refused on the 16 June 2010 and subsequently an appeal lodged. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of harm to the Green Belt with no very special circumstances to justify the proposal.

The two notices (GC/SKT/PL/3/796 Notice A and Notice B) came into effect on 22 February 2010. The Council then sought compliance with the enforcement notices and in May 2011 a further application was made (Ref 3/11/0526). It was for the part restoration of land in compliance with the enforcement notice and provision of hard standing.Subsequent to the receipt of amended plans in August and December 2011, the Council approved the scheme. This provided for the re-arrangement of the car parking layout, extension of the hard surfaced area by 50 square metres, formation of a bund on its road side to provide a raised area to be planted, restoration of part of the currently hard surfaced area back to grass, and reinstatement of the boundary fence with the

bungalow. Conditions required the Council's approval of the proposed landscaping and its implementation, removal of the hard surfacing and its reinstatement to grass, and the provision of the boundary fencing within set timescales, which were then disputed. However this appeal was allowed and costs given.

The original grant of permission, Ref 3/11/0526, was varied by deleting conditions 2, 4 and 5 and substituting for them the following conditions:

2) All earth works, planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shown on drawing nos. E5283 and 011/020/02B (excepting that Alnus Glutinosa (native alder) shall be substituted for the Pinus Syvestris and Salix Alba shown in the tree planting schedule and the number of trees on the bund is reduced to provide one at each end only) shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the date of this decision; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation.

4) The existing hard surfacing and access to the adjacent bungalow, within the land edged blue and shown to be removed on drawing no: 011/020/02B received 8 December 2011, shall be taken up and reinstated to grass, using either turf or seed, before the end of the next planting season following the date of this decision.

5) Notwithstanding the details shown on submitted drawing no. 011/020/02B, the 1.2m high fence on the eastern boundary of the land edged red shall be permanently retained in that position.

3/12/0135/CLPA Certificate of Lawfulness for Proposed Use or Development was granted in April 2012 regarding the demolition of an existing garage and erection of a single storey side extension and new detached garage. The side extension situated off the east facing gable wall of the bungalow would increase the width of the property by 50% (21.5 metres to 32.2 metres) and be no more than 4 metres high (some 1 metre lower than the existing ridge height). The garage would be situated some 7 metres from the west facing flank wall of the bungalow be no more than 4 metres high and have a footprint measuring approx. 8.5x6 metres.

No works associated with this application have been implemented.

3/12/1005/CLPA Certificate of Lawfulness for Proposed Use or Development was granted in January 2013 for the erection of a detached garage, pool room and plant room. The pool room would be situated approx. 1 metre east of the side extension referred to above with a twin gable and shallow pitched roofs with a ridge no more than 4 metres in height facing the road. Beyond and east of the pool room would be a further detached building with single matching gable again no more than 4 metres in height and facing the road. This building is described as being a "storage/plant/pump etc." room. Finally, and in generally the location of the garage referred to above but now some 3 metres from the existing bungalow, a much larger garage is accepted measuring some 12.5x12.0 metres with a ridge height no greater than 4 metres.

No works associated with this application have been implemented.

3/13/0196/FULOn 14 November 2013 full planning permission was granted for the construction of a single storey side and rear extension in association with the change of use of the building as extended to a hotel. That application was granted conditional planning permission on 14 November 2013 and remains extant as unimplemented development.

3/15/0475/FULOn 16 September 2014 full planning permission was refused by the Planning Committee for the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of a 27 bedroom hotel with associated car parking and landscaping.

In brief the grounds for refusal related to the development being harmful to the openness and visual amenities of this countryside and Green Belt area, the design and appearance of the development did not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the wider area and the applicant had made no commitment to make a financial contribution toward transportation mitigation.

Planning Policy

National planning policy is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework issued in March 2014 and in particular Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy, Section 7 - Requiring good design and Section 9 - Protecting Green Belt land.

The NPPF additionally requires that applications for planning permission must be determined, "in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." With the mantra of the planning system contributing to the achievement of sustainable development one of the principle bullet points of pursuing sustainable development, as explained at para 9 of the NPPF, involves improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure. There being and additional requirement to take into account local circumstances so that they respond to different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.

Turning to the core planning principles, appearing in the NPPF of which there are 12, there is a clear requirement for planning to be genuinely plan-led, but not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives. Developments must always be required to be of a high quality of design whilst at the same time promoting the vitality of main urban areas and the protection of the Green Belts that surround them. Additionally, authorities are advised to encourage the effective use of land that has been previously developed provided that it is not of high environmental value.

Finally, the NPPF explains that policies should support economic growth in rural areas and to do so by supporting sustainable rural tourism that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors which respect the character of the countryside "both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings." as part of the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas.

The Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy was adopted on 28 April 2014 and its purpose is to guide development within Christchurch and East Dorset until 2028. In the Core Strategy the following Policies are relevant to this proposal:

Policy KS1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development - When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policy KS3 - Green Belt - Development in East Dorset will be contained by the South East Dorset Green Belt. The most important purposes of the Green Belt in the area are to:

Protect the separate physical identity of individual settlements in the area by maintaining wedges and corridors of open land between them.

To maintain an area of open land around the conurbation.In accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, development proposals on sites considered as previously developed sites within the Green Belt shall be considered against sustainable development criteria.

Policy KS12 - Parking Provision - Adequate vehicle and cycle parking facilities will be provided by the developer to serve the needs of the proposed development.

Policy ME3 - Sustainable Development Standards for New Development - In edited form reads that Non-residential development will be expected to meet national sustainable development standards.

Policy HE2 - Design of New Development - The design of development must be of a high quality reflecting and enhancing areas of recognised distinctiveness.

Policy PC4 - The Rural Economy - Although economic development will be strictly controlled in open countryside away from existing settlements, in order to promote sustainable economic growth in the rural area, applications for economic development will be encouraged where development is located in or on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing, services and other facilities can be provided close together. Such proposals should be small scale to reflect the rural character.

Policy PC6 - Tourism - Encouraging investment will be achieved in part by supporting appropriate sustainable tourist related development with reference to the wider sub-regional strategy (Towards 2015 - Shaping Tomorrow's Tourism) The Core Strategy contains key facts in respect of the value of tourism to the local economy with Christchurch and East Dorset provide 12% of total tourist accommodation in Dorset and there is scope to increase this market share. Saved policies of the East Dorset Local PlanPolicy DES2 - Developments will not be permitted which will either impose or suffer unacceptable impacts on or from existing or likely future development or land uses in terms of noise, smell, safety, health, lighting, disturbance, traffic or other pollution. Policy DES6 - Landscape schemes in rural areas and on the edge of settlements should be comprised of indigenous species.

Policy DES11 - Development will only be allowed where amongst other things the form, materials, lighting, landscape planting and means of enclosure and the relationship of buildings to property boundaries respect or enhance their surroundings.

Consultations

Corfe Mullen Parish Council - The Parish Council raise No Objections to these proposals.

Highways Agency - Whilst the Agency has no objection in principle to the proposed hotel development we want to ensure the operation of the trunk road is protected during the demolition and construction phases of the development. I therefore attach an Article 25 TR110 form directing a condition to that effect. Dorset County Council - The Local Highway Authority raises No Objection to the proposals. They go further by saying that due to the recent change in Government Policy regarding financial contributions no transportation infrastructure contribution will be required in this instance unlike on the previous occasion.

Environment Agency - No comments.

Wessex Water Comments of 16 June 2015 - The proposed hotel sits on the boundary of Wessex Water's sewage treatment works. It is considered that the proposals are unacceptable in such close proximity to these works with potential for odour and fly issues. The applicant should contact Wessex Water to agree the scope of a suitable assessment to appraise the impact of odour and fly nuisance. If the odour issues are resolved it is likely that the proposals will require long off site links to drainage and water supply infrastructure. Buildings above 2 storey will require on site boosted water supply storage. Surface water drainage should be in accordance with NPPF Guidance and Building Regulations hierarchy.Wessex Water Comments of 19 November 2015 - As a result of the receipt of the consultant's report on behalf of the applicant the follow observations are made. We do not believe the odour test undertaken is sufficient to determine odour risk in this instance. We do not agree about the sensitivity of the receptor to odour and fly nuisance and support a refusal of the scheme. Tree Officer - There are a couple of trees to the rear of the existing building that are not of sufficient form or quality to consider to be covered by a tree preservation order. I suggest that better trees could be planted as part of a landscape scheme should the application be granted. No objections are raised to this proposal.Environmental Health Officer - Further comments are awaited and will be reported at the Committee meeting.Representations12 letters in support of this application have been received, as previously mentioned, raising the following matters:

The proposed building will enhance the relatively limited choice of hotel accommodation in the Wimborne and Corfe Mullen area and also bring associated employment opportunities and revenue to the benefit of the local economy generally.

There is minimal such accommodation along the A31 after St Leonards.

This amenity will help draw business to Wimborne and provide opportunities for businesses based in the town and surrounding villages.

Wimborne could do with a little help from affordable and accessible accommodation to encourage tourism.

I cannot see any reason to refuse the application as it is on a major road and would have little or no impact on traffic compared to the café which it would replace. (Not so).

Considerations

Principle of development

The site has an extant planning permission for a 13 bedroom hotel formed out of an extension to and conversion of the existing residential bungalow on the site with parking for some 16 cars to the front and western side of the property. This being so the use of the site for hotel purposes with associated car parking is established as of November 2013. This decision is clearly a material planning consideration in the determination of this current application. A series of Certificates have been lodged and approved to demonstrate the quantum of further residential accommodation that could be added within the site as development within the curtilage of a dwelling house that does not require planning permission. This however is an interesting but, in your officer's opinion, unrelated and purely theoretical exercise irrelevant to this current non-residential application and any attempted to create a fall-back position through this exercise is believed to be flawed.

This application for commercial development must be considered in the context of the policy considerations referred to above appropriately weighted according to the particular circumstances of each in this instance.

Green Belt

The site is situated in the South East Dorset Green Belt where the fundamental aim is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open with one of its five purposes being to assist in urban generation, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The LPA has already used its judgement in permitting the extant scheme paying due regard to para's 89 and 90 of the NPPF which explains that the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt is appropriate provided the buildings are of "permanent and substantial construction", any extensions are proportionate and provided that the openness of the Green Belt is preserved.

The NPPF goes on to say that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt with exceptions, of which there are 6, one of which being the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces and another being the complete redevelopment of previously developed sites which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Again the current case does not comply with these exceptions.

The current case on the does not meet these criteria in any regard. A replacement building can only be considered appropriate in the Green Belt if it is in the same use as

the existing building. In this instance the existing building is a dwelling and the proposed building is to be used as a hotel. It cannot therefore be considered as a replacement building under paragraph 89. Even if it is considered under paragraph 89 as a redevelopment of a previously developed site it would have a greater impact than the building it replaces and would therefore also be inappropriate development in the Green Belt on that ground. Design and appearance

The current approved scheme for a 13 bedroom hotel has a gross internal floor area of approaching 400 sq. metres whilst the current scheme, now over two floors, has a gross internal floor area of 729 sq. metres representing an increase of approx. 80%. Whilst the building alone has improved in terms of its appearance compared with that presented as part of the previous refused scheme the fact remains that, particularly from the front, there is no denying that overall this is a two storey building, albeit with a single storey linking section, replacing a single storey bungalow.

As was the case at the time of the previous refused application the use of extensive retaining walls to three sides of the proposed building demonstrates the lengths that are needed to be taken in an attempt to hide this proposed significant increase in scale and massing of built form on this site.

The proposals also involve the provision of an additional 4 car parking spaces as an overflow area situated in the south east corner of the café car park. This raises an issue similar to that raised in application/appeal (our ref's: 3/10/0148 and 3/11/0526) referred to above whereby the Inspector concluded that in respect of the change of use of land to create vehicular parking and manoeuvring area; reconfiguration of existing parking and hard and soft landscaping, "there are no considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. There are, therefore, no very special circumstances to justify the proposal." The same conclusion, in your officer's opinion, applies in this instance where the "green break" between bungalow and car park (to the café) serves a valuable function in "preventing the road side development from coalescing into one continuous 'strip (of commercial development)." This area becomes all the more important with the grant of permission last November and carried forward into this current submission which reduced this "green break". That being so there are continuing grounds for seeking the restoration of this ground to its former condition such that it returns to being part of the "green break". The attempt on this occasion to mitigate this loss by laying out this area as 4 car parking spaces using a reinforced grass system does is of little consequence if the area is occupied as proposed. Action in this regard will be pursued particularly if the recommendation at the end of this report is supported by Members.

Landscape impact

The LVIA acknowledges, as did a previous Inspector, that the open countryside on the opposite side of the road is particularly attractive with the latter commenting that related views should be protected. This being so significant weight should be attributed to the degree of harm that would be caused to the visual amenities of the countryside and the Green Belt by the proposed development. The opportunities here, however, to provide robust landscaping are limited particularly along the road frontage, as shown indicatively at this stage within the submission, and so is unlikely to provide the visual substance to

provide other than a modest improvement in the appearance of the site compared with the quantum of development here planned. Despite these proposed landscaping works now being more robust than previously proposed they can do nothing to mitigate the increased harmful focus of commercial activity to the detriment of the Green Belt.

The LVIA further concedes that the site and surroundings "have already lost some of this sense of openness as a result of the dominance of the built elements in the immediate local environment. The buildings and hardstandings have dominance over the characteristics of an undeveloped landscape, which often include more rural characteristics such as native vegetation."

It is worth noting that landscaping in front of the cafe car park as required under the terms of the appeal decision letter dated 22 May 2012 (our ref: 3/11/0526/FUL) in compliance with an enforcement notice appears to remain an outstanding matter. Tourism

It has been accepted that the provision of tourist accommodation on this site is acceptable so recognising the provisions of Policy PC6 of the adopted Core Strategy and as such the provision of such accommodation here is considered to carry moderate weight.

Odour and Flies

Wessex Water remain concerned that the evidence with regard to odour and fly infestation, that the applicant has submitted is inconclusive, because the of the need to undertake further evaluation through additional monitoring and modelling, together with the employment of further odour assessment methodology.Without this further evidence, it would be wise to consider these matters to be a material planning consideration, given that the proposed hotel is considered by Wessex Water to fall in a high sensitivity category. It is therefore prudent, to refuse this application in relation to these pollution concerns.

Highways

The Highways Agency has commented on this scheme and has no objections provide a condition is secured ensuring that the operation of the trunk road is secured during the construction and development stage. It is also considered by your officers that a condition requiring that the proposed parking and manoeuvring areas are provided prior to the use commencing and thereafter retained should permission be granted.

Dorset County Council - Local Highway Authority have raised no objections to these proposals as referred to previously.

Conclusion

It is considered that significant weight that can be attributed to the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt, the lack of good design (not of the building) but the means by which the building is placed within a proposed substantially excavated area necessitating the provision of large retaining walls in an attempt to artificially mitigate its visual impact and the overall adverse impact of the proposals on the character and

appearance of the locality particularly caused by the significant focus of commercial activity from a 27 bedroom hotel where presently residential activity arises from a single 3 bedroom bungalow.

On the other hand matters associated with improved landscaping and business/tourist benefits carry sufficiently less weight leading officers to conclude that the proposals are likely to cause sufficient harm to the Green Belt with no very special circumstances to justify the proposed development.

In respect of in particular odour and flies, it is further considered prudent, without conclusive evidence to the contrary, to refuse this application at this juncture. Though recognising that the applicant may, through further negotiations with Wessex Water, resolve matters in this regard in the fullness of time at this juncture the applicant needs to provide further clarity in this regard.

Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

1 The proposed development lies within the South East Dorset Green Belt within which no new development shall be permitted except in connection with agricultural or forestry or other appropriate uses. The construction of a replacement building is only permitted if it is the same use as the existing building. In this instance a hotel is a different use from a dwelling and therefore cannot comply with the criteria for replacement buildings. If considered as a redevelopment of a previously developed site it can have no greater impact than the existing development it replaces. In this instance the replacement building together with extension of the existing adjacent café car park is significantly greater than the existing building and therefore amounts to an inappropriate form of development harmful to the openness and visual amenities of this countryside and Green Belt area. As such the proposals are considered contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy KS3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy adopted 28 April 2014. The applicant has additionally failed to adequately demonstrate that there are sufficient very special circumstances to outweigh the harm that would be otherwise caused to the Green Belt explained in Development Plan policy and National Guidance referred to above.

2 The design and appearance of the proposed development is considered to be significantly greater in scale and form in this Green Belt area. The design incorporates significant remodelling of ground levels, which together with the introduction of substantial retaining walls is considered to lack the high quality needed to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the wider area and as such does not represent a satisfactory form of sustainable development. As such it is considered that the development is contrary to the provisions of Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies PC4 and HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy adopted 28 April 2014.

3 The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the persons working or occupying accommodation within the proposed hotel would not be materially adversely affected by, in particular, odour emissions and flies emanating from the adjacent sewage treatment works operated by Wessex Water.

Informatives:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to REFUSE the application:

The applicant/ agent did not take the opportunity to enter into pre-application discussions.

2 The Council has had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies KS1, KS3, KS11, KS12, ME3, HE2, PC4, PC6, and saved Policies DES2, DES6 and DES11 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy adopted 28 April 2014.

3 The refusal of planning permission is based on the following submitted plans; Drwg No's Unreferenced Location Plan, Site Plan - 010/051/12 Rev. C, Elevations - 010/051/11 Rev. E, Plans as Proposed - 010/051/10 Rev. E and Indicative Landscape Master Plan - ID582.01B together with Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Tourism Assessment and Site Odour and Fly Nuisance Assessment.

Item Number 3 Ref: 3/15/0991/FUL

Proposal: Erection of a single storey building with associated hard standing area for the storage of maintenance equipment for use throughout Christchurch and East Dorset Council public amenity areas

Site Address: Land South Of Potterne Park, Adjacent To Moors Valley Country Park, Ashley Heath, for Community And Open Space Service

Site Notice expired: 14th November 2015

Parish Comments: Verwood Town Council – No objectionSt Leonard’s and St Ives Parish Council (as adjoining Parish) - No objection

Consultee Responses:County Highways Development Liaison Officer

No Objection

Officers Report:

Introduction

This application comes before the Planning Committee because it is an application submitted by the Community and Open Space Service of the Council relating to land owned by the Council. Site Description

The site is situated in the South East Dorset Green BeltThe application site lies on generally level ground on the west side of a surfaced track that runs from the Potterne Park to the north on the southern fringes of Verwood and Moors Valley Country Park and adjacent golf course to the south.

The site is currently used for storage of materials and equipment associated with the maintenance of both parks.

The site is entered through a single galvanised five bar gate where there is an unsurfaced area upon which there are 3 storage containers (shipping containers) to the south, piles of cut vegetation and other small areas of stored goods.

The site is bounded to the north, south and west by substantial hedging and trees with the frontage to the trackway being made up of a dense thicket some 3 metres or so high either side of a drainage ditch. This being so it is considered that the site represents a visually well enclosed site with little exposure to the general public apart from at the point of entrance.

Proposal

The proposals involve the erection of a single span shallow pitched roofed building measuring 16 metres by 25.5 metres with a small adjunct thereto off the south east corner of this building with a lean to roof with maximum height of 3 metres with a footprint measuring 8.5 metres by 3 metres.The main building would have a 1 metre high plinth formed by reinforced concrete panels surmounted by profiled metal cladding and similar finish to the roof with a 6 roof lights to each roof slope. The smaller addition would be faced with block work with matching roof finish. A roller shutter door with adjacent personnel door is to be provided to the buildings south east elevation.

This building would act as a perimeter structure to part of the sites western and southern boundaries and would be set towards the rear of a frontage yard with smaller open area on its northern side. Remaining boundaries the northern, part southern, western and eastern boundaries would be enclosed by palisade fencing some 2.4 metres high details of which are yet to be agreed, but which can be secured by condition.

The yard would be surfaced with a concrete hard standing against the building with gravelled areas elsewhere used in part for the parking of a small number of staff vehicles during weekdays.

Accompanying three existing open storage areas would be a further three open storage bins no more than 1.5 metres high containing ballast, sand and soil.

The site would be accessed from the east through double gates against an existing tarmac road that at this entrance point heads north to Potterne Way and thereon to Verwood Road via Potterne Park and east deeper into Moors Valley Country Park.

Beyond this enclosed area to both the north and part of the western boundary a soft landscaped earth bund (planted with native shrubs Hawthorn, Hazel, Blackthorn, Holly and Elder) no more than 1.5 metres in height is to be formed whilst finally to the west/rear of the building a septic/bio tank is to be installed to serve a wc within the proposed premises. The soil bund is It is the applicant's intention to use the building for the storage and maintenance of all the equipment and vehicles currently used by the Christchurch and East Dorset Landscape and Countryside team and those operating out of Moors Valley Country Park.

The equipment consists primarily of mechanical plant items such as tractors and mowers and associated attachments that are integral to the maintenance of the landscape found within the Councils' areas of operation. A small number (3-4) of vehicles would also be stored at the site.There will be no PIR activated lights outside the building and all external lights on manual switching will be used no later than 4pm.

The application is accompanied by an arboricultural impact assessment that identifies the felling or coppicing of several trees but not along the sites eastern frontage of the site. Relevant Site History

None.

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy - Relevant National Planning Policy is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework issued in March 2012 wherein Section 7,' Requiring good design 'and Section 9, 'Protecting Green Belt' land are considered relevant in this particular case.Section 7

Para. 56 - "Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people."

Para. 64 - "Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions."

Section 9 Para. 79 - "The fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

Para. 81 - "local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities for outdoor

sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity.."

Para. 87 - "inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances."

Para. 88 - "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations."

Para. 89 - "A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:

Buildings for agricultural and forestry; Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for

cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;……"

The Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy Adopted April 2014. The Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy was adopted by the District Council on 28 April 2014. Its purpose is to guide development within Christchurch and East Dorset until 2028. In the Core Strategy the following Policies are relevant to this proposal:

Policy KS1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development"…the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework."

Policy KS3 - "The most important purposes of the Green Belt in the area are to:

Protect the separate physical identity of individual settlements in the area by maintaining wedges and corridors of open land between them.

To maintain an area of open land around the conurbation."

Policy KS12 - Parking Provision"Adequate vehicle and cycle parking facilities will be provided by the developer to serve the needs of the proposed development."

Policy HE2 - Design of New DevelopmentThe design of development must be of a high quality reflecting and enhancing areas of recognised distinctiveness. Consultee Responses:

Verwood Town Council - No Objections.

Dorset County Council - The local highway authority raises No Objection to this application.

Tree Officer - The site has hedges and scrubby tree screening. Its former use is as a compound and soil dump. There are no trees within the site or surrounding it of any value and we would not consider serving a tree preservation order. The main trees are separated from the site by a ditch. Any felling that has been recommended in the Tree Impact Assessment is based on the condition of the trees, rather than the need to carry out tree work in order to accommodate the building. I have no objections to the proposals and there is no need for tree protection conditions.

Representations

As a result of the publicity afforded this planning application no representations have been received.

Summary of IssuesThe main issues in the consideration of this application are:

The principle of development Design and Visual Impact; Trees; Access, Parking Provision and Traffic Generation; and, Site Selection

The principle of development

The site lies within the South East Dorset Green Belt where there is a presumption against development which fails to maintain the area of open land around the conurbation unless there are "Very special circumstances". Whilst this is not one of the 6 very special circumstances appearing at para.89 of the National Planning Policy Framework, in your officer's opinion, the proposed building is required in connection with the maintenance of parks at both Potterne and Moors Valley together with other areas of Public open space managed, owned or maintained by the Partnership.

For this reason the development is considered to be acceptable in principle under the exceptions deemed "Very special circumstances" in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Design and Visual Impact

The proposed building is of a design and appearance like many agricultural buildings in the countryside and as such similarly acceptable in general design terms in this location.

The visual impact of the proposals is, to a material extent, mitigated by existing boundary vegetation that will be bolstered by the provision of a 1.5 metre high earth mound that will be planted with native tree and shrub species. There is a degree of ambiguity in respect of whether there is intended to be external light within the application site or not and that being so a condition is recommended to ensure that due consideration may be given to light pollution if the applicant intends to make such provision.

In all the circumstances it is concluded that the proposals in this particular respect are acceptable.

Trees

No trees within or adjacent to the site are subject of a Tree Preservation Order and having regard to the comments of your tree officer it is considered that in this specific regard there are no adverse grounds upon which to resist these proposals.

Access, Parking Provision and Traffic Generation

The applicant explains that the tarmac road approaching the application site from Potterne Way is already used by maintenance vehicles as part of the operation of Moors Valley and Potterne Parks and surrounding district. Should this development be permitted it is envisaged that only a small additional vehicle movements per day would be generated and these would occur early in the morning and not at the weekends when the parks are most heavily used.

It is further said that pedestrians will still have use of the tarmac road and there is adequate width available to cater for both vehicles and pedestrians.

Site selection

It is said by the applicant that the majority of operations that will be undertaken from the proposed building will take place within Moors Valley Country Park and Potterne Park so the building ideally needs to be located within the boundaries of these parks allowing efficient deployment of staff and avoid unnecessary vehicular movements.

More broadly speaking the applicant has explained that from this building it is the applicant's assessment that 80% of all operations will involve land at Moors Valley Country Park, Potterne Park and other public parks and recreational areas in the district so justifying this location. The majority of the maintenance equipment which is presently stored in a range of unsuitable buildings at Moors Valley are not registered for road use or if so are slow moving and would be very difficult to transport in the frequency required to locations outside of the parks.

Work undertaken outside of these parks in terms of conservation, recreational and landscape operations are wide spread across the surrounding district. Consequently the proposed location of the proposed building offers a central base allowing good road access and efficient deployment to all areas in a sustainable manner.

From a financial perspective the applicant has explained that if the proposed building were to be located outside the Moors Valley and Potterne Parks area the increased travel fuel costs, operational hours and resource commitments would be such as to call into question the viability of such operations. Further even if an alternative suitable location could be found there would be additional unsustainable revenue implications that the applicant would have to bear.

Conclusion

The applicant has explained that having carried out a scoping exercise to identify other suitable locations for the required building in the surrounding district, for operational and economic reasons no other suitable site has been identified.The applicant has also confirmed that 80% of all operations related to the application site will involve land at Moors Valley Country Park, Potterne Park and other public parks and recreational areas in the district so justifying this location.

Accepting of this conclusion and considering that this proposed development is a "Very Special Circumstance" your officers' believe this proposal is acceptable.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: M-SP-14-16-002-B - Site Plan, M-SP-14-16-003-Rev.A - Plan_ Elevations As Proposed and M-SP-14-16-005.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 Particulars showing the appearance and finished colour of the boundary pallisade fence, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved. Such details as may be agreed shall be implemented in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the building to which these elements relate, maintained for a period of five years and any structural or decorative defect appearing during this period shall be rectified and the enclosure shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the enclosure details of the proposal and its implementation and retention.

4 Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any on-site work commences. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory.

5 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the hard and soft landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority by means of a large scale plan and a written brief. All proposed and existing trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval such new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking, etc., in BS5837:2012 immediately following commencement of the development. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years

during which time any specimens which are damaged, dead or dying shall be replaced and hence the whole scheme shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and the locality

6 In the event of external lighting being required within the site a detailed specification for the provision of such lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before commencement of development. Thereafter the approved works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with that specification and retained in that condition.

Reason: In the interests of the general amenity of the locality.

7 Before the maintenance building hereby approved is first brought into use (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) , the 3 existing shipping containers on the application site shall be removed from the land.

Reason: To preserve the openness of the Green Belt

Informatives:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application:

the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was

required.

2 Regard has been had to advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies KS1, KS3, KS12 and HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy.

Item Number 4 Ref: 3/15/1028/HOU

Proposal: Two storey side extension. Extension to side dormer

Site Address: 116 High Street, Sturminster Marshall, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs N Dalton

Site Notice expired: 1 November 2015Nbr-Nfn expired: 26 October 2015

Parish Comments: OBJECTS to planning application 3/15/1028/HOU, 116 High Street on the grounds of loss of car parking. The extension would mean that car/s associated with the dwelling would have to park on the High Street which is already congested. The Proposal fails to accord with Policy KS11 and KS12 of the Core Strategy.

Consultee Responses:County Highways Development Liaison Officer

No Objection

Officers Report:

This application comes to committee as the Officer recommendation is contrary to the view of the Parish Council. One letter of support has been received.

The Proposal

This application is for a two storey pitched and gabled roof extension on the side (south) of this semi-detached cottage that fronts the High Street. It is also for a small extension to the existing dormer extension at the side of the rear extension which will have no window openings.

The extension will have a ground and first floor window in its front elevation facing High Street and a single door in the ground floor of the side (south) elevation. No windows are proposed in the rear elevation.

Policy

The site is in the urban area of Sturminster Marshall where it is acceptable in principle to extend dwellings. Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy is applicable.

Assessment

Impact on character and appearance of the area

The two storey side extension will enlarge the main dwelling and improve its relationship with the extensions. It will sit comfortably in the street scene and match the existing dwelling in terms of design, detailing and external materials. The space between the

extension and the nearest adjacent dwelling at 114 High Street is appropriate for its context and will not appear out of character with the immediate area.

The extension to the dormer is at the rear of the dwelling and not seen in the street scene. It will not have an adverse impact on the street scene as a result.

The symmetry of the pair of semi-detached cottages will be lost, but this is not considered to be a reason to refuse the application, given the buildings are not listed and not in a conservation area.

The proposal respects Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy Part 1 (CS) in terms of its relationship with its surroundings.

Impact on occupants of adjacent dwellings

The extension of the existing rear dormer is not significant in size and this does not, and will not have any windows.

The dormer faces the roof slope of the attached property at 118 High Street which has roof lights facing the application site and proposed dormer. Given there will be no openings in the dormer, no overlooking will result. No significant overshadowing is expected of these roof lights given the relationship between them and the dormer.

The distance between the two storey extension and the immediate adjacent property at 114 High Street is acceptable and would prevent any adverse impact on the amenities of the occupants of this property. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy HE2 of the CS in respect of its relationship with neighbouring properties.

Impact on bats

The application includes a bat report that concludes that no bats were observed at the property during the survey. Therefore this accords with the Dorset County Council Biodiversity Protocol and Policy ME2 of the CS is complied with.

Loss of off-road parking

The proposal will result in the loss of an area off the road to park a car. However, there will be space for 1 on-site parking space next to the proposed south elevation of the extension, and the small boat that is currently stored here could be moved back with the parking space in front of it.

There is space on the road to park outside the property and the applicant could park in front of the off-road parking space (which would not be available to other vehicles).

When applying the parking standards guidance for new development contained in the Dorset Residential Car Parking Study Calculator which forms DCC's current parking guidance, it is apparent that a 4 bedroom dwelling (which the proposal represents) would require 1 allocated space and 1 unallocated space.

It is considered that the allocated space is represented by the single on-site space next to the extension, and the unallocated space is the space on the road outside the property.

Given this rational and in light of DCC Highways comments, Officers do not consider the loss of a single on-site parking space is sufficient reason to resist the proposal.

The proposal accords with Policy KS12 of the CS in terms of parking provision.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, approval is recommended.

Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

RB Services Drawing No. R665/4: Plans and Elevations

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. The materials and finishes to be used for the external faces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing.

4. Upon occupation of the two storey extension hereby permitted, the space to the south of the two storey extension shall be retained for use as a car parking space and shall not be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To ensure a single off-road parking space is available for the dwelling to reduce the number of vehicles parking on the road.

Informative Notes:

1 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and national Planning Practice Guidance 2014 in the determination of the application.

2 If at any stage of the development bats or evidence of bat use is found, works should stop immediately and advice be sought from Emma Pollard 07817 690952 (Bat Warden: bat licence no.2015-13840-CLS-CLS) or Natural England on 0845 1300228.

Policy Considerations and Reasons

In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy 2014 were taken into account. Saved policies within the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, were also taken into account. These include specifically the following policies: HE2 ME1

3. IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Plan & Council Objectives3.1. To ensure East Dorset’s natural and built environment is well managed.

Legal3.2. The Council is the Local Planning Authority and has delegated to the Planning

Committee the responsibility for determining planning applications in accordance with the provisions of the Local Plan, statutory and non-statutory guidance in the form of legislation and Planning Policy Statements.

Environmental3.3. Any issues are contained within the body of this report.

Financial and Risk3.4. The risk implications relate to the potential for judicial review or maladministration

if the applications being reported have not been considered properly in a procedural sense or there is a substantial flaw in the consideration.

Equalities3.5. Planning application determination requires a positive and questioning approach

by the decision maker to equality matters. Where a particular issue requires a focused consideration there will be a reference in the particular report