Extension to provide a laboratory at ground floor level and four classrooms and an art room at first floor level together with walkways, a staff room and a lift on the north side of the existing school complex (additional information and amended plans rec'd 8.8.14)
Site Address:
Ringwood Waldorf School, Folly Farm Lane, Ashley, for Ringwood Waldorf School
Site Notice expired: 23 May 2014
Advert Expiry Date: N/A
Nbr-Nfn expired: 5th June 2014
Parish Comments: Mindful of the educational needs of the school, no
objection provided conditioned to prevent further development rights and provided the Officer is satisfied it is compliant with Policy. Members were pleased with the design which they felt was in keeping with the rest of the site and location.
Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section The site is set in a verdant area bordered to the
northern elevation by a screen of mixed species broadleaf trees. Dominating the southern elevation of the development site stands a mature Oak tree with a stem diameter of some 95cm. The submitted Barrell Tree Report ref: 14023-AIA-AS dated 5.02.14 has identified the oak and two further trees in the same area, a Poplar and Willow. Both these trees have now been felled and only their stumps remain as recommended in 1.2.1 of the report. The proposal is to extend out and over the existing buildings to create additional classrooms, a laboratory, staffroom and lift access. On the face of it I have no major concerns with the majority of the proposal; I do however have concerns re the impact the build will have upon the Oak tree (T1). In order to build the proposed Oak will require severely cutting back if not felling in order to facilitate the construction of the first floor extension to the music room. The submitted Barrell report implies that the tree can be retained but it is my opinion that this is not the case. As is shown on the submitted Barrel plan ref: 14023-BT1 the canopy spread of the tree significantly impedes into the proposed build area and separation between the tree's canopy and the building once built will be virtually zero.
Within the appeal decision for the previous application (3/10/0664/FUL) the inspector states that the tree will be close to the building and that it would not have an unacceptable impact upon it, as there have been fairly substantial works previously carried out upon it and should the development proceed further trimming back of the tree would not be harmful. Unfortunately the appeal inspector appears to have set a bench mark and while it is still my opinion that the tree issues have not been fully understood or considered with regards to this tree, the tree has limited amenity outside of the site so the weight to be given to the impact of the development would not warrant refusal. Recommendation: No arboricultural objections subject to a condition requiring tree protection in accordance with the submitted report.
County Highways Development Liaison Officer
This application should be referred to the HIGHWAYS AGENCY for their consideration and comment in view of the close proximity of the main school access to the A31 exit slip road. Thank you for your e-mail of the 11/8/14 and the attached Traffic Report and proposals for a Traffic Management Plan. Having studied the documents and conducting its own site visits, the County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION to the proposal based on its consideration of highway safety relating to the public highway (approximately only the first 18 metres of Folly Farm Lane adopted the remainder presumably being a private road which is the responsibility of the Estate). Furthermore it notes that the Highways Agency is satisfied that the development is unlikely to have an operational impact on the A31 trunk road (which includes the off slip lane). The issues raised by objectors and also those made in the parking survey are noted, and whilst not considered sustainable highways reasons for refusal, could be wholly or significantly mitigated by implementing some or all of the measures recommended in the parking report. To this end I suggest the following planning condition: Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, details of a Travel and Parking
Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The strategy shall state the precise measures selected to be employed to reduce and control both the need to travel to and from the site, and parking at the site; together with the timing of the implementation of such measures. The strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: In order to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the development upon the local highway network and surrounding neighbourhood by reducing reliance upon, and increasing the operational efficiency of, private car journeys related to the site.
Highways Agency From a review of the documents provided we are
satisfied that the development is unlikely to have an operational impact on the A31 trunk road. We therefore have no objections to the proposal and enclose an Article 25 TR110 form to that effect.
Officer Report: Permission is sought for extensions to buildings at Ringwood Waldorf School to create an upper school on the site. The site lies in the Green Belt. The application comes before the Committee because of the number of letters of representation received from both supporters of and objectors to the proposal. Approximately 30 objections have been received, predominantly from employees, residents and parents of residents at the Lantern community. They raise concerns about the impacts of additional vehicular movements, pressures on parking, loss of trees and the visual impact of the building. One other neighbouring resident has also questioned the capacity of Folly Farm Lane to support the additional development. Over 40 letters of support have been received from those associated with Ringwood Waldorf School. They stress the benefits of an enhanced school curriculum, greater educational choice and improved library and laboratory facilities for pupils. The Parish Council has not raised an objection. The Site The Waldorf School lies on the east edge of the Sheiling Community complex on the north side of the A31 and south of the B3081 road to Verwood and the Castleman Trailway. The Ringwood Waldorf School comprises a cluster of predominantly new school buildings which derive from planning permissions granted before the confirmation of the boundaries of the South East Dorset Green Belt. The 2012 ‘Statement of Development Intentions produced on behalf of the Sheiling Estate’ identifies the Ringwood Waldorf School as having an overall capacity for 314 children. ‘ The school is one of over 30 Steiner schools in the UK and currently
provides education for over 260 children between the ages of three and seventeen years.’ The building the subject of this application lies to the west of the main school buildings. Three detached houses lie to the east of the school site and two Sheiling dwellings and a bakery are positioned to the south. Access is gained from Folly Farm Lane off the A31 slip road. The site is bound to the north by the Castleman Trailway. Planning History Permission (3/89/0368) for the current school buildings was granted in 1992 as it was found to accord with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2): ‘Green Belts’ (1988). Subsequent applications approved temporary buildings during the phased construction and revisions to the approved plan did not increase the floor area. In September 2008 a Statement of Community Intentions for the Sheiling Trust was approved by the Council’s Policy and Resources committee, in recognition of nationally important work undertaken by the Sheiling Community. In relation to the Ringwood Waldorf School the stated intentions were to develop a new teaching facilities amounting to 693sqm of additional floor space but this part of the submission was not approved by the Planning Committee as it was judged not to warrant an exception to Green Belt policy. A subsequent application 3/10/0644/FUL for extensions to the workshops to provide a ground floor laboratory and first floor classrooms (total 620sqm) was judged to represent additional inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to PPG2 (1995) and was refused. The applicants appealed the Council’s decision. The Planning Inspector agreed with the Council that the proposed development was inappropriate development as defined by PPG2 and that the increase in volume over and above that of the existing building would result in ‘a fairly pronounced impact on the openness of the Green Belt’. He considered that the effect on the character and appearance of the site and Green Belt with respect to the likely impact on trees was acceptable but that the benefits of the provision of Steiner school places in this location had not been clearly made and other considerations did not amount to such very special circumstances to justify the development. Proposed development The current proposal is identical to that previously dismissed at appeal and comprises extensions to the existing group of four workshops in the northwest corner of the site. The floor area would be extended to create a ground floor laboratory (labelled R108) with a preparatory room and a first floor (accessed via a lift or external staircase) would be created to provide four additional classrooms (R96, 98,100 & 102), an art room (R104), staffroom (R107), toilets (R91-94 & R106) and lobby space. The first floor would overhang the ground floor creating a covered walkway below and would be served by a lift.
Planning policy Since the refusal of application 3/10/0644/FUL the Government has published the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). Chapters 8 ‘Promoting Healthy Communities’ and 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt land’ are of particular relevance. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states ‘ As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is by definition harmful’ and should not be approved ‘except in very special circumstances’. At paragraph 89, the exceptions to inappropriate development include the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result ‘in disproportionate extensions’ In November 2012 the Council considered an updated framework to guide development by the Sheiling Community and the School entitled ‘Updated Statement of Development Intentions for land at the Sheiling Estate, Ashley Heath, Ringwood’. In the light of the NPPF provisions the Planning Committee agreed that the proposed 220sqm of additional floor area (11.4% increase) represented a proportionate addition to the existing buildings within the Green Belt. The Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy adopted in April 2014 does not contain any specific policies in relation to school development. Policies KS1 ‘Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’ and KS3 ‘Greenbelt’ reiterate the position of the NPPF. Policy KS10 ‘Strategic Transport Improvements’ identifies the need for contributions towards highway network improvements in line with the South East Dorset Transport Contribution Scheme whilst KS11 ‘Transport and Development’ identifies that the Council will use their planning powers to reduce the need to travel and require mitigation against negative transport impacts that may arise. Policy KS12 ‘Parking provision’ requires adequate parking facilities be provided. Policy HE2 of the Core strategy relates to the Design of New Development and states:
‘Within Christchurch and East Dorset the design of development must be of a high quality, reflecting and enhancing areas of recognised local distinctiveness. To achieve this, development will be permitted if it is compatible with or improves its surroundings in: Layout Site coverage Architectural style Scale Bulk Height Materials Landscaping Visual impact Relationship to nearby properties including minimising general disturbance to amenity Relationship to mature trees.
This is within the context of the Christchurch Borough Wide Character Assessment. In the East Dorset rural area, design should accord with the Countryside Design Summary. An East Dorset Urban Design Guide will set out the key characteristics expected to be incorporated into schemes. In Special Character Areas development must respect the identified features and characteristics. Careful design to reduce the risk of crime will be required.’
Pre-application contact The applicant's agent submitted the scheme for pre-application advice and was advised that the Council considered the proposal represented an extension of a building in the Green Belt where paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applied. The relevant Planning policy guidance, site History, including the earlier appeal decision on this site were also discussed. Considerations The main issues to be considered are:
• whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt
• the effect of the proposal on trees and the character of the area
• the effect of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring occupants
• the effect on the transport network
• whether any harm arising by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Inappropriate development in the Green Belt and effect on the openness of the Green Belt The school site lies in the Green Belt. In dismissing the previous appeal (an extension with a floor space of 620sqm and identical form to the current proposal) the Inspector judged that the proposed extension was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, with reference to PPG2. ‘5. The construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless for certain specific purposes. The extension of school buildings does not comprise one of those purposes. In light of the foregoing both parties, correctly in my view, regard the proposal as being inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There is a general presumption against such development, which is regarded by definition as harmful to the Green Belt. Such development should not be permitted except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.’
The Inspector also considered that the proposed development, due to the proposed increase in volume and floor space would have ‘a fairly pronounced impact on the openness of the Green Belt’. ‘8. The impact of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt would be lessened to some extent by the fact that it would occupy the site of an existing building in close proximity to other school buildings. It would not therefore extend built development out onto undeveloped areas. That said, there would be a substantial increase in volume over and above that of the existing building on the site of the proposed development and a fairly significant increase in floor space over and above that of the school site as a whole.’ Whilst maintaining a strong protectionist stance in relation to Green Belts the NPPF has redefined the exceptions to the rule that new development is inappropriate. The exceptions now include ‘the extension or alteration to a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building’ and ‘limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development’ (para 89). Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (para 88). It is proposed to extend an existing single storey building comprising four craft workshops. The applicant’s agent argues that the Council should consider the extension as a proportionate addition in relation to the size of the entire school. The existing floor area of the school is 2509sqm and the development would represent a 9% increase. When the Statement of Development Intent was before Members on 4 September 2012 a proposed first floor extension of 220sqm was accepted as a proportionate increase to the floor area of the original school. In reporting the Statement of Development Intentions, the officer report advised ‘that whilst the Local Planning Authority is not able to agree that the work proposed at the Ringwood Waldorf school is supported by such special circumstances as to warrant an exception to Green Belt policy it does accept that the proposed extension of 220 square metres would satisfy the Government’s Green Belt Policy in the NPPF’. Members were therefore advised it would not be possible to maintain an objection to the proposed modest increase (220sqm) in the floor area of the Ringwood Waldorf School. At paragraph 89 of the NPPF, the exceptions to inappropriate development include the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result ‘in disproportionate extensions’. The applicants contend that the school is one building linked by corridors, rather than a collection of buildings which in their view makes the proposal an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt.
Considering the cumulative size of the entire school as the basis for an extension does not accurately reflect the intentions of the NPPF. This is your officers’ view, which differs from that of the applicants. The proposal is an extension to the craft workshops building and therefore it is considered that the assessment of the size of the proposal against this building, rather than the wider conglomeration of school buildings, is necessary. 'Original building' is defined in Annex 2 (Glossary) of the NPPF as ‘a building as it existed on 1st July 1948 or, if constructed after this date, as it was built originally’. The submitted plans identify the existing craft workshop building as having a gross floor area of 241sqm and a volume of 710 cubic metres. The proposed extension has a gross floor area of 779sqm and a volume of 2732 cubic metres, significantly exceeding the 220sqm identified in the Statement of Development Intent. The result would be a building which is four times the floor area and almost five times the volume of the existing. Notwithstanding that these figures include covered walkways with limited visual bulk; the development is disproportionate and therefore inappropriate. As the Planning Inspector identified that the proposal would impact the openness of the Green Belt the extension cannot be considered under the ‘limited infilling’ exception of the NPPF. The proposal therefore does not accord with any of the exceptions in paragraph 89 of the NPPF and it is, by definition, inappropriate development. It is therefore necessary to consider whether any very special circumstances exist which would outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm identified. Impact on trees & character of the area The site lies beyond the urban area. National and local planning policy identifies opportunities for economic development in rural areas but does not refer to school development. The proposed extensions would increase the bulk of the development but the extensions would take place within the existing school boundaries and any harm resulting from the visual impact would be limited as it is screened by a belt of trees to the north and would be viewed in the context of the existing school complex. The proposal would update the existing buildings and ensure an architecturally unified appearance. The Planning Inspector previously dismissed the Council’s concerns about the potential impact of the proposal on adjacent trees. The Council’s arboricultural officer remains concerned that the development will require the removal of a significant portion of the canopy of an Oak Tree with the remainder of the canopy continuing to impinge on the southern views from classroom R104. Whilst your tree officer remains concerned that that the development is likely to result in pressure to remove the tree, he has not provided a reason for refusal because of the benchmark set by the previous appeal decision and because the amenity value that the tree provides is limited to views within the site.
Impact on neighbouring amenity Core Strategy Policy HE2 requires that development should be compatible with or improve its surroundings in relation to 11 criteria including relationship to nearby properties including minimising general disturbance to amenity. Ringwood Waldorf School occupies land at the eastern end of the Sheiling Estate. In the centre of the estate, west of the school, lies the Lantern Community which provides residential facilities, education and meaningful work opportunities for adults with learning disabilities. Several objectors consider that, in addition to transport issues which are considered below, the proposed school extension will be harmful to the amenity of members of the Lantern Community due to overcrowding of the school site impacting on the spaciousness which is characteristic of the estate and contributes to the well-being of residents with learning disabilities. However no demonstrable harm to the character of the site or neighbouring amenity has been identified; the proposed development will not extend the school beyond its existing boundary, has a maximum height of 8.3m and is set back in the northwest corner of the school site over 40m away from the Sheiling dwellings to the south. Traffic The impact of additional traffic generated by the proposal has been the main concern raised by objectors. Policy KS11 requires that development should mitigate negative transport impacts which may arise through the implementation of measures identified within the submitted transport assessment. Objectors have argued that impacts of any increases in traffic will be heightened for members of the Lantern Community because their learning disabilities make them more vulnerable. The applicant has submitted a transport assessment which identifies that there are some issues with inconsiderate use of the school’s car parks but the capacity of Folly Farm Lane is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated number of additional pupils during the morning peak and the extension would have a de-minimis impact on the highway network. The traffic report includes recommendations which could be incorporated into a traffic management plan. The agent has advised that the school is in discussion with the Lantern Community in the light of the report’s findings. The additional 32 pupils anticipated following the development would not result in any significant increase in traffic in planning terms but given the potential for any increase to affect members of the Lantern Community it would be necessary to impose a traffic management condition if permission was granted. This could require that an agreed traffic management plan be implemented to improve the way that the car park operates. Dorset County Highways officers have judged that the development does not necessitate a contribution through the South East Dorset Transport Contribution Scheme 2 as envisaged in policy KS10 because the proposal will not increase the pupil numbers above the capacity of the existing school as approved by the Department for Education (314 pupils).
Very Special Circumstances No additional harm has been identified but in line with paragraph 88 of the NPPF the harm resulting from inappropriateness and harm to the openness of the Green Belt weighs strongly in favour of refusal. It is necessary to consider whether very special circumstances exist which outweigh this harm.
1. Need for Upper School Provision
The School began in 1974 for children of staff working at the Sheiling School who wanted their children’s education to be based on the principles advocated by Dr Rudolf Steiner. It is one of 34 Steiner Schools in the UK and 1 of 5 in the south west of England. At appeal the Planning Inspector judged that substantial weight may potentially be attached to the function of the school in meeting the needs of parents within its catchment area who seek a Rudolf Steiner education for their children. The Inspector’s position accords with paragraph 72 of the subsequently published NPPF which states that: ‘The government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should: • Give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and • Work with school promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before
applications are submitted.’ Under the major heading ‘Protecting the Green Belt Land’ the NPPF advises that ‘The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts’. It therefore remains reliant on the applicant to demonstrate very special circumstances for development of this kind in the Green Belt. The applicants submit that nearest alternative schools, which provide Upper School Steiner education are located in Bristol, Gloucestershire, London or Hereford. The proposed Upper School in Ringwood would widen the choice in education for pupils over a significant geographical area (the catchment is estimated as 600sq miles). ‘4. The alternative schools with an Upper school which could serve the periphery of this catchment area are:
4a. The Salisbury environs are within the catchment area. The nearest Upper school is at Wynstones School, Gloucestershire, a distance of 110 miles. 4b. The Southampton environs are within the catchment area. The nearest Upper school is at Bristol Steiner School, Bristol, a distance of 65 miles. 4c. Dorchester is within the catchment area. The nearest Upper school is at Bristol Steiner School Bristol, a distance of 65 miles. 4d. Parents who live in the Ringwood area, would have to travel to either Kings Langley, a distance of 100 miles, or Michael hall School, Forest Row, a distance of 120 miles, or Bristol Steiner School, Bristol, a distance of 125 miles, or the Hereford Steiner Academy, a distance of 160 miles.
These are the closest Waldorf schools with an Upper school and surely cannot be regarded as at reasonable daily travelling distances’ (Design and Access Statement Appendix 2). Some of these schools offer boarding facilities, nevertheless it is acknowledged that the proposal would facilitate the provision of Steiner school upper education in the locality thereby meeting an educational need to which ‘great weight’ can be attached. In relation to Pupil numbers, the school as fore-mentioned is registered for 314 pupils (by the Department of Education). The applicants submit that based on current pupil numbers, Kindergarten to Class 10 provides a total of 248 on the roll. There are 19 in each of the classes 9 and 10 so they have estimated an approximate total sixth-form equivalent of 32 (16 in each class) which would bring a rise in numbers to a total of 280. ‘Decline in Class numbers with age – More children enter the school in the lower classes. Some children leave at secondary school age for a variety of reasons including the wish to take GCSEs. A few replacements may join seeking an alternative Upper school education. It is reasonable to expect a similar drop off after class 10 (at age 16/17), due e.g. taking up an apprenticeship or seeking to take ‘A’ levels elsewhere. These pupils are less likely to be replaced as the RWS Upper School alternative education would be well under way by that age.’ (Pupil Numbers Clarification Supplementary Paper) It is unclear whether an additional 32 pupils is an optimistic estimate. Letters in support of the proposal indicate that there is some demand from parents of existing pupils. The application is not supported by evidence of demand for class 11 and 12 education at a level which would achieve viability. As the Upper School has previously failed to attract sufficient pupil numbers to remain viable it is not clear that the need is such that it demands the size of building proposed.
2. Need for the Upper School to be on the same site
The Inspector also considered that substantial weight might be attached to the need for an Upper School on same site as the existing school but downgraded this due to lack of clarity over the then existing off-site provision. The applicant’s arguments remain that:
• the ethos of Waldorf education is that the whole educational school age span should be on one site due to the intense integration of educational activities with pupils assisting with activities of younger pupils across the age span
• practical problems which would arise from split sites in relation to staff coordination and duplication of services and negative ecological impacts from the need to bus pupils between sites
• economic issues; the need to purchase another building would make the proposal unviable and local development opportunities are limited
• The Inspector agreed that these seemed to be sound considerations but with the level of information available he could not be sure that the Upper School
could not continue to operate from the off-site location that had previously been used.
The Upper school previously operating from the site was disbanded in 1994. The Design and Access Statement now clarifies that between 2003-2009 a collective home-tuition project known as the Aquila Project, run at Sturts Farm, attempted to provide education for classes 9 (15yr olds) and above. This utilised two buildings paid for by Sturts Farm and was informally supported but not administered by Ringwood Waldorf School. The buildings were intended as a temporary measure, application 3/04/0906 advised that the intention would be for future use as a farm shop. Without greater levels of administrative and teacher support the Project apparently proved to be unsustainable. The School decided to reopen its Upper School (disbanded in 1994 due to small class sizes), subsumed the two Aquila classes and has concentrated on classes 9 and 10 (15-16yr olds) with the intention that the proposed extensions will provide necessary classrooms and science/art facilities to accommodate a full Upper School (15-18yrs). Whilst this information explains that a former attempt to operate an Upper School offsite failed, it appears that the reason for the failure was not primarily due to its location in relation to the other school buildings but because of the reasons already mentioned and the lack of formal relationship with Ringwood Waldorf School and limited commitment from Sturts Farm (who wanted the building for other purposes). This downgrades weight that can be placed on the ‘need for integration’ argument and the economic and convenience reasons given to justify the development could be replayed too often to be judged to be ‘very special’. Officers acknowledge the significant investment that the current school buildings represent and recognise that there is a desire to invest in an extension that could have a multifunctional benefit to the school, but they are not convinced that the applicant has demonstrated that there are no alternative locations where the Upper School could be accommodated which would meet the need of the catchment area without the level of harm to the Green Belt that would result from the present scheme. The applicants have provided no information concerning their efforts to seek premises elsewhere in the vicinity. Other schools within the County have explored these alternatives, members may be aware for example of the soon to open Parkfield school (a free school) which is due to relocate to existing buildings at Bournemouth Airport (in the Green Belt), from a site within Bournemouth Centre. It is not evident what similar efforts the applicants have made to seek alternative premises for their upper school since 2009 before electing to build in the Green Belt.
3. Need for additional teaching space
The need for additional accommodation was an argument laid before the Planning Inspector but at the time he judged that this had not been sufficiently evidenced. The school has now provided a ‘Floorspace requirements clarification report’ highlighting the recent regulatory changes to school facility requirements. The latest Ofsted inspection in 2012 noted that ‘The premises and accommodation provide an attractive and helpful environment for teaching and learning, but resources for independent learning higher up the school are limited’. Evidence has been submitted to support the School’s contention that the proposed additional floorspace is required to meet the deficit in the light of The Education (Independent School Standards) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 which has, since Jan 2013, had the effect of requiring that all types of school (maintained and independent schools) have to meet the same premises standards. Specific standards for school premises is provided in the form of non-statutory advice (‘Advice on Standards for School Premises’ published May 2013) but the applicants emphasise that it is ordinarily expected that schools will not depart from the guidance. Ringwood Waldorf School states that the main issues they face are:
• the requirement to provide showers for pupils over 11years of age who undertake physical education which will require the reallocation of rooms.
• the existing science laboratories are too cramped to accommodate the existing classes of 25 students so as to ensure the health, safety and welfare of pupils as required by the regulations and these same rooms have to be used for modern languages.
• 25% of pupils have extra needs, half of this number are on the Special Educational Needs register but it has been necessary to lose the ‘movement room’ used for therapy sessions with therapies and small group support taking place in a shed or in corridors, lobbies or outside.
• the existing space limitations curtail the school’s ability to offer a broad and balanced curriculum experience in accordance with its founding vision (as required by part 1 of the independent schools regulations) to provide Steiner education and will inhibit the ability to offer the extended Steiner curriculum.
The school also argues that if the proposed extension is built their total internal teaching area will only just exceed the minimum identified in non-statutory area guidelines (‘Building Bulletin 103: Area guidelines for mainstream schools’ updated June 2014); the recommended minimum gross area for a school the size of Ringwood Waldorf providing education from 4-16+ (excluding early years provision) is 3050sqm. The existing gross area (excluding early years provision) is 2327sqm. With the proposed extension the school (excluding early years provision) would have an internal floor area of 3106sqm, 56sqm over the minimum and 436sqm less than the maximum recommended gross area.
Given the above, some weight can be given to the need for additional classroom space to meet regulatory requirements for the existing school as well as the proposed expansion of the Upper School. The weight is limited as the regulations do not prescribe the form of the development which is proposed. The applicants have drawn attention to the Council’s decision in 2008 to grant permission for extensions of 203sqm to Hampreston First School (3/08/0748/FUL). Committee Members agreed that the recommended educational space standards, in combination with benefits to the openness of the site arising from the removal of storage/greenhouse buildings, represented very special circumstances that outweighed the harm by reasons of inappropriateness in the Green Belt. The differences in this case are that the school is seeking to both upgrade its existing facilities and expand the number of classes and the proposed development will impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The existing difficulties in reallocating rooms could be eased by the provision of the 220sqm of additional classroom space identified in the SODI, albeit that this would fail to the plug the deficit and the school has rejected it as being not cost effective to construct. Conclusion The proposal represents development which is inappropriate within the Green Belt and is therefore by definition harmful. The size and form of the development would also result in a fairly pronounced impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF requires that ‘substantial weight’ is given to any harm to the Green Belt and ‘very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harmKis clearly outweighed by other considerations’. Evidence has been provided to support the school’s contention that there is a need for the provision of Upper School education within the extensive catchment area but the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that this could not be provided on alternative sites. The benefits of additional teaching space to the whole school cannot be given significant weight as the guidance is non-statutory and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed extension is the minimum size necessary to meet the requirements. Officers recognise the requirements of paragraph 72 of the NPPF to ‘give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools’. For the reasons set out above, your officers do not consider that in this case the educational benefits represent such ‘very special circumstances’ that would outweigh the totality of harm to the Green Belt from the proposed development as a result of it being inappropriate and impacting the openness of the Green Belt. The recommendation is that the proposed extension be refused. Recommendation: REFUSE – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):-
Conditions/Reasons:-
1. The site is located within the South East Dorset Green Belt in which development is inappropriate unless it accords with the exceptions set out in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed extension, which represents a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building and which fails to preserve the openness of the Green Belt due to its height and bulk, would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to the policies of the Government set out in paragraphs 79-91of the National Planning Policy Framework. No very special circumstances exist which would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that would result from the development.
Informatives: 1 In reaching this decision the Council has been mindful of the provisions of
the National Planning Policy Framework and the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy 2014
2 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 focussed on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;
o offering a pre-application advice service, and o 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 was provided with pre-application advice and was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer.
3 The decision was made in relation to the following plans: Workshops, Plans and Sections 5.0026/0 Site and Block Plans 5.0026/1 Ground floor block plan 5.0026/2 rev E First floor block plan 5.0026/3 rev C Ground flood plan 5.0026/4 rev A First floor plan 5.0026/5 rev A Elevations, north and east 5.0026/6 rev B Elevations, south and west 5.0026/7 Sections 5.0026/8 rev A Roof plan 5.0026/9 rev A
Item Number 2 Ref:
3/14/0245/FUL
Proposal:
Conversion of the existing building that forms the main Stapehill Abbey Complex and its curtilage buildings to 19 dwellings and the refurbishment of one dwelling. Demolition of a two storey element in the south east part of the complex extending to the flat roofed area behind the south range and demolition of the single storey elements in the north courtyard. The demolition of the museum building to the east of the Abbey complex and the erection of 25 dwellings together with associated modification to the existing access arrangements and the provision of car parking and garaging. The restoration by landscaping of the 250 vehicle car and coach park, the installation of a foul drainage system including a new pumping station and the provision of land amounting to approximately 1.87 hectares for use as allotments as amended by plans rec'd 18.9.14 showing revised layout and some changes to house types
Town Council Comments: Comments on amended proposals awaited Town Council Comments: Support
Members requested that the town councils support for this proposal be recorded and reasons for it be reported to the EDDC planning Committee. The Town Council planning committee had previously made a two hour inspection of the Abbey in July 2013 and at that time members were concerned at the evident deterioration to the fabric of the Abby which included significant areas of damp and dry rot. Members now believe that the deterioration will have progressed subsequently especially during the very wet winter. They support the proposal as it will enable this important heritage asset to be restored and preserved. A number of councillors took part in the pre-application consultation and the committee noted the preponderance of favourable responses from residents. The proposal also includes a provision to make land available for allotments under a section 106 agreement. There are currently 20 residents on the Town Councils allotments waiting list and the provision would enable the Council to meet its
statutory obligations without the high cost of purchasing land. The Town Council is also in favour of the proposal as it would help meet the demand locally for prime housing. Although the site is currently designated as Green Belt, it is within easy reach of the town centres of Ferndown and Wimborne. The development would also be served more immediately by nearby shops in Stapehill. Members consider that the development would be well served by the free bus routes operating along the Wimborne road and that the limited number of residential dwellings would not significantly increase the level of traffic in the area.
Consultee Responses: Environment Agency No objection to the application but we recommend
conditions and informatives are included on any permission granted
Wessex Water Services Ltd We note the applicant’s intention to reuse existing foul
drainage apparatus where condition and capacity permits. Measures will need to be agreed with WW including any changes to pumping rates and the adoption of new and existing sewers through section 104 (Water industry act 1991) arrangements.
Natural England No objection in principle re the provision of a SANG.
Final comments to be reported. English Heritage Tree Comments
A welcome and very useful report. On behalf of English Heritage, I am pleased to say that we place full confidence in your approach. I am sure Henry VIII's commissioners never had such thoughtful comments at the earlier dissolution. Not being familiar with the site and not having picked this up from previous documentation, I am not clear if the screen you refer to as separating the 'two churches' separated the parish/public side from the nuns'/conventual side. Did a priest officiate a single altar that for the benefit of both parts or were there two parallel churches with a screen, one public one conventual? Either way, the screen would be one of the most significant aspects of the place; thus, in our view, its presence and purpose should be carefully considered and reflected in conversion proposals. To be reported
County Highways Development Liaison Officer Architects Panel
No objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of planning conditions relating to the access details. Comments on original submission ‘Principle The Panel supports the principle of residential conversion in the Abbey complex. Its former use as a convent means that the buildings lend themselves to a sensitive conversion scheme. The Panel acknowledges that the residential conversion of a Listed Building will be complex and expensive and that the new dwellings are to provide funds to enable the development. The balances involved to allow for development in the Green Belt are a matter for the Planning Authority to decide. However, it would be disappointing if Planning Policy (whether Green Belt or local heathland impact) restricted the potential of the site to provide the best possible setting for the Listed Building and secure its future. The Abbey being Grade II Listed may not be of highest concern to English Heritage but within the region of Stapehill, Ferndown, Longham and Hampreston, it represents a significant and distinctive asset. Conversion The Panel considered the broad approach to the conversion. It is understood that a Conservation Officer will consider the detail but the Panel reminded EDDC that a strategy for the heating, ventilation and insulation of the buildings will be need to be developed to provide a realistic assessment of how much historic fabric can be retained or exposed. The present Building Regulations present challenges with associated potential cost implications - particularly regarding acoustics and fire protection between dwellings. The removal of structures to create a new street is supported and the spaces look convincing and well handled. The patterns of the buildings are respected and set a good standard for the rest of the development. New Development The new development is arranged flanking the Abbey gardens and lake. There are broadly 3 ‘zones’ arranged within the existing field pattern: (Zone A the site of the former tractor museum), a moderately formal arrangement of terraced dwelling with some detached; immediately southeast of the Abbey complex; (Zone B, to the south of A) a range of detached dwellings encircling a
close (or cul-de-sac); and (Zone C) a handful of large detached dwellings along the western boundary. An additional zone (Zone D) relates to the gardens to the Abbey which comprise a formally laid sequence of pathways and spaces lead to an informal lake and remain undeveloped (with the exception of a Pump house and LAP) and provide open space for the development. The Panel considered the new development as follows: Zone A – The urban pattern set up by units 30-35 is supported and encouraged. The Panel felt that this part of the site could support a more dense pattern; taking its clues from courtyard arrangements, cloisters, stable blocks or even agricultural forms. The layout proposed includes a suburban component of detached dwellings arranged around a whimsical and informal ‘created’ village green form of space. The Panel feels that this is a missed opportunity. Indeed, units 23-29 are disappointingly arranged with little regard for site boundaries, historic patterns or reference to the Abbey. A row of garages (P32 to P33) are proposed fronting the Abbey – this seems a shame. The Panel felt also that the layout in this location does not ‘borrow’ the character of the Abbey – perhaps via framed views, axes or a permeable pattern that links the development visually to the Abbey complex. Zone B – The Panel felt that the principle of an arrangement of detached ‘villas’ within the existing field pattern might be acceptable. It was understood that the proposed pattern was designed to offer a greener pattern to reduce the impact on the greenbelt. However, the proposed arrangement is unimaginatively suburban, again having little regard for the site boundaries, existing field pattern or the urban/rural edge. The Panel supported the reduction in density in this location but felt that the pattern proposed did not relate well to the Abbey gardens or take the opportunity again to pick up on the relative formality offered by the Abbey complex and garden spaces. Whilst it is acknowledged that large detached dwellings might offer the best values, this does not mean that the public realm should be without structure or identity. The Panel felt that the dwellings in this area have missed the opportunities present on the site and even that the suburban environment envisaged could be ‘anywhere’. The pattern is not locally distinctive and needs further refinement. The Panel felt that the northern parts of this area adjacent the garden could also potentially accommodate a
denser pattern. Zone C- The arrangement of significant large dwellings within their own distinct plots is supported – however, again, there is an opportunity for them to have regard to the gardens and lake. Design of Dwellings The Panel felt that the arrangement of dwellings, their form, scale and the places created between was equally as important (if not more) than the designs of the dwellings themselves. The submitted elevations are well handled individually but the Panel felt that the presented drawings did not successfully ‘tell a story’ regarding the design decisions for the detached dwellings overall. There are good local precedents for suburban or garden forms that have a ‘theme’ to tie them together and relax the spaces (Milton Abbas, Throop ‘Homes for Heroes’, Debenhams farms etc.). Landscape The Panel supported the principle of developing the immediate ‘fields’ to leave the gardens/lake. However, the gardens and lake and surrounding open space will require a great deal of maintenance and looking after. It is assumed that a management company will be set up to handle this. The Panel raised a concern that much of the development appeared to ‘turn its back’ on the gardens/lake and that a series of detached, cul-de-sac arranged homes may not have need to enjoy the gardens. As such, the Panel wondered how realistic the site density was. The Panel felt that a denser pattern to the northern parts of the site with dwellings that overlooked and related to the gardens might help put the gardens into a well-used ‘public realm. Smaller dwellings/apartments with more limited private space might then be able to make better use of the gardens. The proposed allotments do not appear to have been ‘designed’ and feature simply as a note on the drawings. The Panel supports the idea of allotments as it helps to bring a community use close to the Listed Building but the design and layout needs considering. The allotments will require parking and services – the Panel suggested that a walled kitchen garden might be an exciting and appropriate way of containing the paraphernalia associated with allotments and enhance the setting of the Abbey, with the obvious historic reference. General Comments Despite the Panels concerns on the layout, the Panel was supportive of the principles behind the scheme. Concern was expressed that a single use across the
site (private, open market dwellings) represented a monocultural approach that risks sterilising the environment and removing the asset from the implied public realm. It is a shame that the site cannot support other uses (employment such as offices, enterprise units or studios or even a restaurant/pub etc.) and it should not become a gated community. It would be a great opportunity for the site to offer some public access through the development or past the Abbey, but the Panel understand why a developer might wish to avoid this. The Panel felt that the overall low density and avoidance of affordable housing potentially leads to a skewed social mix. The Abbey and gardens in their present form represent an existing formerly rich use within the Green Belt. The Local Authority, Natural England and English Heritage should take the opportunity to make the most the site and immediate surroundings to take the pressure off other areas with the green belt or heathland and secure the future of the asset. The Panel felt that overall the proposals as presented are a timid attempt to nurture an inoffensive scheme through the planning process. This is a shame. The Panel felt that whilst significant and positive attention has been given to the quality of the individual elevations and their detailing, insufficient time has been given to explore and develop the overall master-plan of the development - in respect of its relationship with the formality of the existing layout of the Abbey buildings its Gardens and the lake. This is a missed opportunity and has resulted in an apparent ‘disconnect’ between areas of the proposals and the existing pattern of development – leading to a lack of cohesion to the overall scheme. The importance of achieving a more coherent and balanced layout to the development layout is greatly increased given the dual constraints of the listed building ‘setting’ and the loss of Green Belt that will be required.’
Officers Report: Introduction This application is before the Planning Committee as there were more than 5 letters received which are contrary to your Officer’s recommendation. This combined application seeks Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent to convert the existing Stapehill Abbey complex and curtilage buildings into 19 residential units and also to erect 25 dwellings within the grounds of the Abbey as
'enabling development' where the objective is to conserve and secure the future of the building which is a designated heritage asset. The Abbey, located on the outskirts of Ferndown, lies within grounds of approximately 27 hectares and is situated within the green belt. The proposal, in essence is in four parts:
• The conversion of the Abbey complex (including the double chapel and some of the curtilage buildings) into 19 residential units of various sizes to ‘best fit’ the structure. It should be noted that units 1 and 2 and 4 are existing dwellings on the site and not included in these figures although unit 4 will be altered internally as part of these proposals. Some demolition is involved to dilapidated parts of the Abbey building.
• The demolition of the former tractor museum and the construction of 13 new houses in its place;
• The erection of 9 new dwellings south of those located on the museum site within a former paddock area;
• The erection of 3 larger 'bespoke' dwellings on the western side of the formal garden area, again within a former paddock area.
A schedule of accommodation detailing the form and size of the units is set out later in the report. Background to the proposal Stapehill Abbey was acquired by the current owners in 1990. About this time the Council granted planning permission for a change of use of the former Abbey complex and its grounds to a craft centre and tourist attraction. The grounds were subsequently landscaped as part of the development and an ornamental lake formed. As the layout of these grounds is recent, they are not part of the historic setting of the listed building. Prior to the opening of the attraction, a further permission was granted to erect a 'museum' to the east of the Abbey. In essence this was a large modern steel clad building required to accommodate a large tractor / rural life museum. Members granted the building (which exists today and is now shown to be demolished) as part of an 'enabling development' within the green belt to help facilitate the tourist activity on site. Both permissions were subject to a legal Agreement to ensure that no land was sold off and was to remain as a single planning unit (unless a further permission was granted). Whilst the craft centre opened in 1992 it subsequently closed to the public in 2008. Information supplied by the applicant indicates that from the period 1996 to 2007 the business operated at a net loss in most years averaging a loss of £66,000 per year. Given the loss making nature of the business and the need to upkeep the historic buildings on the site, the owners took the decision to dispose of the property in 2006 and in this respect the application is accompanied by a marketing report. It states that the applicants have made three attempts to dispose of the property all of which were dealt with by national groups of estate agents. The total cost of the three marketing campaigns is listed as £80,000 being carried out in 2006; 2008 and 2011. The results of the marketing campaign are set out in the marketing report but resulted in no firm offers for the site. Various uses were considered by potential purchasers and these
include a hotel, care home, various institutions and residential development but none of them went forward with acquisition due to finance availability and the associated planning risk at the time. Given its green belt location and the listed status of the Abbey, your Officer’s were keen to ensure that the abbey complex remained the focus of any development proposals. Indeed, many of the informal schemes suggested would have resulted in an unrelated activity within the grounds which failed to give a long term economic use of the building. The applicants consider that the proposed strategy of promoting residential development in this way (and through the use of enabling development), is the only sustainable and viable sector to secure the long term future of this designated heritage asset. Pre-application Community Engagement. In accordance with best practice, the applicants carried out pre application engagement with the local residents and Ferndown Town Council. The applicants wrote to local residents and also held a 2 day exhibition at the Abbey in January this year. It is understood that there were over 120 attendees to the exhibition which provided valuable feedback to progress the proposal. Representations on Planning Application received At the time of writing, the application has generated 10 letters of representation (2 in support and 8 objections). Comments in support of the proposal point out that the conversion will preserve the Abbey and will minimise impact on the green belt and wildlife. The other letter of support is qualified by the comment that if the traffic volume is to be acceptable the Gypsy and traveller site proposed in the locality should be dropped. With regard to the objections received they include: proposal contrary to green belt and core strategy policies; overdevelopment; excessive traffic generation; urban sprawl; will spoil visual landscape; precedent for future development in the green belt; allotments will be unsightly; will wildlife be protected; traffic congestion and pedestrian safety; loss of privacy to adjacent dwellings; should be owners responsibility to maintain and upkeep Abbey; Why is it a listed building?; sustainability issues; do we need additional housing in the area? Alternative uses seem to be rejected; and why is there need for change, it should remain as before. Conservation deficit The Abbey complex is currently in a poor state of repair. The applicants commissioned a full building survey of the structural condition of the building which also identified the scope of the works to restore and convert the buildings. Whilst routine repairs have been carried out to the premises over the years, it is clear that extensive work and funding is required to secure the future of the Abbey which is beyond the means of the current owners. Hence some end use is required that would lead to the building being improved and occupied.
In this respect the accompanying Design and Access and Heritage Statement submitted by the applicant notes that there is a clear statutory obligation for the decision maker as to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting. It also emphasises that 'the new use of the Abbey complex should seek to generate sufficient finance to save the fabric of the heritage asset buildings for future generations. In the absence of a particular new user, a residential conversion provides the best opportunity of generating the finance but even so, it requires significant additional funds to overcome a conservation deficit'. English Heritage defines a 'Conservation Deficit' as when the existing value of the premises (often taken as zero) plus the development costs exceeds the value of the place after development. Development costs not only include repair, but also, if possible or appropriate, conversion to optimum viable use, and a developers profit appropriate to the circumstances. In line with English Heritage guidance (see below), the applicants have undertaken viability assessments to ascertain the Conservation Deficit produced by converting the Abbey complex to residential, this being, according to the marketing information submitted, the optimal viable use of the site. The applicant has provided a summary of those calculations including the proposed enabling development that will offset the Conservation Deficit. They are 1. Refurbishment and conversion of Abbey to residential £12,385,044 2. Market value of Completed Scheme £8,605,000 3. Conservation Deficit - £3,780,044 The residual land value required to offset the Conservation Deficit through enabling development is therefore just under £3.8 million pounds. Planning Policies relevant to this application Relevant planning policies are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan 'Core Strategy' and the English Heritage guidance document 'Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places' (2008). National Planning Policy Framework The purpose of planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (par 6). There are three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. One of the environmental roles set out in the NPPF is defined as 'contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.' Section 6 of the NPPF deals with Delivering a Wide Choice of high quality homes. Paragraph 55 notes that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It states that local planning authorities (LPA's) should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as 'K.where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or where
the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting,' The green belt policies are set out in para 79-92 of the NPPF. As with previous green belt policy (set out in PPG2) the NPPF states that 'inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.' It goes on to state in para 88 that LPA's should ensure that substantial weight is given to the 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 of the NPPF confirms that a LPA should regard the construction of new buildings in the green belt as inappropriate development. However there are exceptions to this which include the reuse of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction. Section 12 of the NPPF deals with conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Para 131 of that section notes that 'in determining planning applications, LPA's should account of
• 'the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
• the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
• the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
Where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Para 140 states that ' LPA's should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies'. Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Core Strategy policies Policy HE1 of the Core Strategy notes that 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, and that both Councils will seek to promote and support initiatives to reduce the number of heritage assets at risk including the sensitive reuse and adaption of historic buildings. Policy HE2 relates to the design of new development. New development must be of high quality reflecting and enhancing areas of recognised local distinctiveness. Development needs to compatible or improve its surroundings.
Policy HE3 Landscape Quality Policy LN2 New Housing Development Policy LN3 Affordable viability assessment Policy ME2 heathlands Policy ME1 Biodiversity Enabling development and the conservation of significant places' English Heritage 2008 (the guidance) Whilst there is no statutory definition of 'enabling development', the above guidance provided by English Heritage defines it as 'Enabling development' is development that would be unacceptable in planning terms but the fact that it would bring public benefits sufficient to justify it being carried out, and which could not otherwise be achieved. While normally a last resort, it is an established and useful planning tool by which a community may be able to secure the long term future of a place of heritage significance, and sometimes offer other public benefits, provided it is satisfied that the balance of public advantage lies in doing so. The public benefits are paid for by the value added to the land as a result of granting planning permission for its development.' English Heritage policy on the matter is set out in its guidance as follows: 'Enabling development that would secure the future of a significant place, but contravene other planning policy objectives, should be unacceptable unless; (a) It will not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting (b) It avoids detrimental fragmentation of management of the place (c) It will secure the long term future of the place and, where applicable, its continued use for a sympathetic purpose (d) It is necessary to resolve problems arising from the inherent needs of the place, rather than the circumstances of the present owner, or the purchase price paid (e) Sufficient subsidy is not available from any other source (f) It is demonstrated that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the place, and that its form minimises harm to other public interests (g) The public benefit of securing the future of the significant place through such enabling development decisively outweighs the disbenefits of breaching other public policies, When considering applications for planning permission it is essential that the decision is based on a full understanding of the impact on the place and its setting. Financial considerations are fundamental to any decision about enabling development. It follows therefore that a critical assessment by appropriately qualified professionals is carried out.
Enabling development should always be seen as a subsidy of last resort, since it is an inefficient means of funding a conservation deficit, often requiring enabling development with a value of 3 or 4 times the conservation deficit of the historic asset to break even. In financial terms, the case for enabling development normally rest on there being a conservation deficit. A development appraisal in such cases produces a negative residual value. If so, enabling development may be justified, but only sufficient to cover the conservation deficit i.e to bring the residual value up to zero. The proposal in detail The proposal involves the conversion of the Grade 2 listed Abbey complex and outbuildings into 19 dwelling units, the demolition of the existing 'tractor museum' and the erection of 25 new houses within the grounds. This is in addition to the three existing cottages on the site (shown as units 1, 2 and 4) some of which are to be altered internally by the proposals. The new dwellings are of varied size and design and are grouped primarily towards the south eastern side of the Abbey on the site of the former tractor museum. Three larger 'bespoke' dwellings are located to the south west of the Abbey adjacent to the link. The schedule of accommodation is as follows: Conversion of Abbey, Outbuildings (excluding refurbishment of existing dwelling at Plot 4) (plots 3 - 22 shown on drawings) 3 x 2 - bed flats 1 x 2 - bed house 11 x 3 - bed houses 3 x 4 - bed houses 1 x 5 - bed House (with 1 bed annex) Total 19 Units Enabling development within grounds (plots 23 - 47 shown on drawings) 11 x 3 - bed houses 14 x 4 - bed houses Total 25 units The conversion The Design and Access statement (the Statement) submitted with the application notes that; 'The Abbey complex is greater than the sum of its parts in the sense that whilst much of it has rather mundane features, it historically is important and because of its past uses, it is a well-loved-heritage asset by the community' With regard to the conversion works the Statement notes that there are three areas of the building which have given rise to much discussion between the applicant and your officers: the conversion of the twin chapels, the main east/west corridor and the north courtyard area.
In relation to the twin chapels the concept is to subdivide the space into two larger dwellings (unit 8 and 9) with minimum intervention into the structural fabric. The advantage of the twin chapel is the main roofs have a hidden valley, which provides opportunity to install roof lights to provide additional daylight, without impacting on the visible external appearance of the building. In essence the submitted drawings show the insertion of 'pods' into the two chapels to provide the living accommodation thus avoiding any significant disturbance to the fabric of this part of the Abbey. Another issue raised at the outset of negotiations relating to the conversion was the condition of the east/west corridor and associated accommodation (currently located between proposed units 13 and 18). Early maps show a substantial glazed area running east to west over what amounts to a corridor between the earliest portion of the building and the accommodation along approximately two thirds of the south west elevation. Today, this area equates with a felted flat roof that continues to cause problems with rainwater penetration which then flows into the oldest part of the building. It is evident from the report submitted that this element needs to be taken down along with the building at the head of this corridor 'fronting' the south range. It is proposed to demolish this element of the building an open up the corridor to provide open air access to units 6-18. Within the north courtyard of the Abbey complex (attached to the east wall of the church) is a 'late addition' to the Church. This is a flat roof structure in fletton brickwork and the original roof detail has been lost. It is understood that this in turn has led to a flaw in the structure to the rear of the church where the inner corridor is adversely affected by rainwater penetration. Also on the south side of the north courtyard a recent, addition has been made post 1955 which currently houses the redundant kitchen which served the former tea rooms. The intention is to demolish the north courtyard late additions. The resultant courtyard is to be used as private space for the converted chapels with the remainder a communal area shared by the residential units adjacent. The enabling development The enabling development is concentrated mainly to the south east of the Abbey complex (22 units) with three additional larger dwellings to the south west, close to the lake. Whilst an access track 'connects' the development all round, it is envisaged that the southern part of the track will be closed off to vehicular traffic (by removal bollards) and only used by emergency vehicles. The enabling units are primarily 3 or 4 bed detached (to achieve maximum value towards the conservation deficit) with semi - detached and terrace properties to the south east of the abbey. Each plot differs in design and is of high quality in appearance. The formal gardens are of recent origin and of no historic value. However, they are proposed to be retained in part, for communal use in association with the development. Parts of the garden will also be used to create a local area of play
(LAP) and also some of the outbuildings to be converted (see plots 21 and 22) will annex part of the area as private garden. A new pumping station is to be provided within the grounds to upgrade the existing system on site. An area for proposed new allotments is shown on land within the site to the north of the Abbey along part of the Wimborne Road West frontage with access from Stapehill Road. It is understood that agreement has been reached with Ferndown Town Council to develop the site for allotments in the future and this will be covered in the proposed legal agreement. The access arrangements The site is currently served by two access points. The main access is via a modern junction with Wimborne Road West which has the benefit of a right turning 'Ghost Island' and was originally constructed as part of the Craft centre permission. The second highway access point onto Stapehill Road was used to provide an 'exit only' from the craft centre car park which accommodated up to 250 spaces. It is proposed to serve the new development from the two existing access points. The main access onto Wimborne Road West would serve dwellings 1, 2, and 3, Units 4 - 20 (the converted Abbey) and detached dwellings 45 - 47. The supporting highway statement notes that this access has good visibility and has the benefit of a right hand turning lane on Wimborne Road West. The internal road leading to the junction would be widened with passing places at suitable locations between the trees along each side of the road. The second access is onto Stapehill Road. This would become 'two way' providing both access and egress with visibility improvements. This will provide the access to serve units 21 - 44 together with access to the proposed allotments (approx. 35 spaces). The existing Abbey car park (approx. 250 spaces) will be restored back to a field. At its peak, (in the late 90's) the former tourist attraction was estimated to have generated some 50,000 visits per annum. In contrast, the current proposal is likely to generate approximately 362 vehicle movements per day (i.e 181 leaving and 181 entering) split between the two access points. In the morning peak hour, 0800-0900, the supporting highway statement estimates that some 10% of the total leaving the site would do so in this hour. As part of the highway strategy a new footpath is proposed to provide a link to the existing footpath network in Wimborne Road West. Ecological Survey The applicants commissioned an ecological appraisal to support the proposal. A Phase 1 and 2 bat survey was carried out which confirmed the Abbey was supporting common and soprano pipistrelle, whiskered, long eared and serotine bat roosts. The site was considered to contain suitable habitat to support reptiles including the wet
ditches, the lake, the overgrown ornamental area west of the lake and the hedgerows. The presence of grass snake within the site has been confirmed A mitigation strategy for the site is set out in the appraisal. The Biodiversity Mitigation Plan has been approved by the Natural Environment Team at DCC and the proposed measures will be incorporated in the proposed scheme, complying with Policy ME1 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 –Core Strategy Heathland Mitigation The site lies between 400m and 5km of the protected Dorset Heathland. Whilst the applicant originally agreed to make the required mitigation contribution, Natural England sought to achieve a SANG for use by residents of the scheme within the extensive grounds of the site. Following negotiations with the applicant, agreement has been reached to incorporate a 6.5 ha area of land to the south west of the Abbey for the benefit of the residents, friends and visitors of the Abbey (rather than public in the wider sense) to be provided prior to first occupation. The SANG would be managed by the management company. Natural England have suggested a default position where if the management company fails once the SANG is up and running, a capital sum is pledged (and incorporated within the agreement) to allow for repairs /maintenance and mowing for the walkways for a period of 12 months. Considerations In consideration of this application both the applicant and your officers have followed the guidelines set out in the English Heritage document 'Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places'. Discussions have taken place with your officers over the past 18 months. The site is located within the green belt where new residential development would not normally be permitted unless very special circumstances exist. The national and local planning policies in this respect are set out earlier in this report. Given the current condition of the Abbey and the intended optimum viable use of the premises, it is considered that the public benefit of securing the future of the Abbey complex outweighs the 'disbenefits' of breaching other planning policies, including the green belt. The proposed development would secure its long term future of the Abbey and prevent fragmentation of this heritage asset. The conversion works are also shown to be sympathetic to the building and its setting. It needs to be demonstrated however, that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the Abbey and that its form minimises harm to other public interests. In this respect the Council engaged a consultant surveyor to provide an assessment of the pre-application documents in support of the case for enabling development and to comment independently on the conservation deficit and enabling viabilities which form the basis of the applicant's case.
In summary, he concluded that;
• The property had been adequately exposed to the market in accordance with English heritage guidelines;
• Residential use remains the most feasible use for the Abbey buildings;
• The proposed conversion element is considered to represent the appropriate quantum of development in terms of the number and size of units given the constraints presented by the existing buildings;
• The viability report by Rebbeck Brothers Chartered Surveyors (on behalf of the applicant) provides an open market valuation of the property in its current condition of £1.587m. The gross sales revenue is £8.605m and the total scheme costs are estimated to be around £12.385m
• The estimated sales values for the new build average £311 per sq.ft with prices ranging from £345,000 to £725,000. It is recognised that some individual houses in prime residential areas nearby may command higher values but those for the enabling development are considered to be realistic in the context of an 'estate' style development requiring service charges for upkeep of access roads and large communal areas (including the residents SANG).
• The quantum of new development contained in the proposals is acceptable based on the conservation deficit calculation.
The Architects Panel was consulted over the original proposal prior to the submission of the amended plans and its comments are set out in full at the head of this report. It will be noted that the panel was supportive of the principles of the scheme but had reservations (as did your officers) over the 'apparent disconnect between areas of the proposals and the existing pattern of development-leading to a lack of cohesion to the overall scheme'. The Council engaged the services of a local conservation consultant to provide conservation and design response to the application. The consultant produced an interim report which highlighted some unresolved issues and the need for the scheme to be amended with more details submitted. Following his initial comments, a number of meetings took place with the applicant, consultant and your officers to satisfactory resolve some of the issues raised. The views of the Architects panel were also taken on board. Amended plans were subsequently submitted to address these issues including some design changes to the enabling development (particularly in relation to plots 23 - 28) and the layout of the development, which now takes into account the site levels (in the vicinity of the former tractor museum) and a more cohesive relationship with the Abbey complex. The consultant conservation officer's initial report was copied to English Heritage which raised the following comment included in its response: 'A welcome and very useful report. On behalf of English Heritage, I am pleased to say we place full confidence in your approach.'
Phasing of the development The applicants have submitted a phasing report for the enabling development proposed at Stapehill Abbey. It concludes that whilst the conversion of the abbey to residential use will protect this important listed asset, the costs associated with conversion and renovation creates a loss of £3.78m that will have to be off-set by enabling development. Including an allowance for developer's profit, costs of converting and renovating the Abbey total £12.38m. Significant complex construction and infrastructure works require a high level of upfront investment and the nature of the project inevitably creates a time lag between significant initial investment and income from sale of the proposed units. Without phasing, the report points out, 'Positive cash flow at key construction stages of the development proposal at Stapehill Abbey will be unviable and undeliverable'. English Heritage supports this view in its guidance when it states; 'With larger projects, an effective compromise can be phasing, so that once a defined block of work has been done and payment made, the first phase of enabling development may proceed, with subsequent development phases scheduled to follow the delivery of subsequent benefits. It is essential that the benefits are a step ahead of the detriment, not a step behind'. Clearly phasing the development forms an essential part of this proposal if the development is to be viable and deliverable. The applicant has confirmed that no enabling development will be released / sold prior to the future protection of the listed buildings. The submitted report sets out the various phases proposed with a breakdown of renovation / conversion costs apportioned to each phase. It also provides a detailed breakdown of calculations regarding the amount of enabling development required to offset deficits for each phase. There are six phases of development identified in the report: Phase1A Infrastructure and acquisition (to include demolition works) Works to be carried out include services, roadways, land preparation / excavation, pumping station etc. This has to occur for the entire development at phase 1. Splitting the infrastructure works into phases would be too costly an exercise. The cost of phase 1A is estimated to be just over £4,053,000 Phase 1B Renovation of significant listed elements within conversion proposal (excluding outbuildings plots1-3, 21 & 22) Works to be carried out in this phase include proposed demolition of parts of Listed Building identified in proposal; roofs repaired and watertight, brickwork repaired and repointed (and in relation to both areas adjacent to demolition and where structurally it is unsound) to be rebuilt with supporting and related structural elements as necessary, fenestration and external doors made good with replacements as
necessary, damp proofing including revising adjacent ground levels and removal of rot all subject to a detailed specification to be submitted to the LPA prior to works commencing. The cost of phase 1B is estimated to be just over £2,529,300 Phase 2 Enabling off set (Units/ amount) Construction of Phase 2 enabling units (16 in total) can be completed during phase 1a and 1b. However, occupation of the 16 enabling units cannot occur until phase 1a and 1b have been completed. Phase 3 Complete conversion of Abbey Complete internal fit out to listed building (excluding units 1 - 3, 21 & 22). The cost of phase 3 is estimated to be £2,582,000 Phase 4 Enabling off set Construction of phase 4 will be limited to slab level only until phase 3 is completed. Phase 4 involves the completion of a further 6 enabling dwellings. Phase 5 Complete renovation and conversion of remaining outbuildings Units 1,2,3 and 21 & 22 at a cost of £1,376,000 Phase 6 Remaining enabling development Construction of 3 dwellings. Phase 6 will be limited to slab level until phase 5 is completed. The phasing schedule will be incorporated within the terms of the proposed legal Agreement. Affordable Housing Policy LN3 of the Local Plan seeks to provide up to 40% affordable housing in accordance with the Policy Delivery requirements and Affordable Housing Requirements subject to financial viability grounds. However, the guidance produced by English heritage in this respect notes: ‘The delivery of public benefits in addition to securing the future of the significant place, for example affordable housing, tends to increase the amount of enabling development required, and should normally be avoidedK' Given the conservation deficit involved and the need for enabling development, no affordable housing is proposed with this application as it would increase the costs of the development which already has a negative value in relation to the proposed conversion works. The applicant is currently preparing a brief report to demonstrate the amount of additional enabling development that would be required in the green belt if affordable housing was to be considered and this will be reported to the meeting.
South East Dorset Transport Contributions (SEDTC) In circumstances where a site has a previous use, the net increase in standard daily trips is used to calculate the SEDTC contribution. However, the policy notes that where a site has been dormant for five years or more all traffic generated by the proposed new use will be considered to be 'new' to the network. As the former use of the Abbey as Craft centre ceased in 2008, the transportation contribution is payable. This requirement has been factored in to the applicant’s development costs and the requirement will be incorporated within the legal agreement. Summary and Conclusions The Councils planning policies and the relevant national guidance contained within the NPPF are set out earlier in this report. As members will be aware the construction of 25 new dwellings in the green belt would be considered 'inappropriate development' and not normally approved except in very special circumstances. Similarly, further advice in the NPPF states that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as development that would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or 'would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets of lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting. There is no doubt from the reports submitted that a significant amount of work (and cost) is required to renovate / repair this listed building and to secure its long term future. In this respect the conversion of the Abbey complex to residential is considered the optimum viable use of the building. However, the conversion costs result in a conservation deficit. Without enabling development the proposed use of the building would be unviable and therefore undeliverable. Longstanding members of the planning committee may be aware that enabling development, in the form of 29 residential units, was permitted (at appeal) within the grounds of Henbury House, Sturminster Marshall in 1995 to secure the repairs to the grade 2* listed building. This property was in open countryside designated green belt. The applicants in relation to the current case have identified a £3.8m conservation deficit which can only be met by enabling development, which in this case amounts to the erection of 25 new dwellings with the Abbey grounds. The concept of enabling development is an established and useful planning tool by which the community may secure the long term future of a designated heritage asset, provided it is satisfied that the 'balance of public advantage lies in doing so'. Both national guidance and English Heritage policy make it clear that local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the place and that its form minimises harm to the public interests. The applicant has submitted financial information to demonstrate the extent of the conservation deficit and how this can be met with the enabling development proposed. Furthermore the phasing of the project set out by the applicant ensures
that the various stages of restoration / conversion of the listed building are proportionate to the staged construction and release of the enabling development. Whilst it is recognised that the developer seeks to reduce risk in financial outlay in advance of any return on his investment, the Council needs to ensure that work to the building is carried out and completed in a measured way. This will form part of the legal agreement that will need to be secured prior to any grant of planning permission. In relation to impact on the green belt, many of the units are located in the vicinity, and on the site of, the former rural life museum. This is a substantial building that will be removed as part of the proposal and this will in part, balance the impact (and associated harm) of the old building with that of the new development. Like Henbury, (referred to above) the new development is clustered close to the Abbey with three units set in spacious grounds to the south of the complex adjacent to the lake. The design and appearance of the enabling units are pleasing and to a high standard and the conversion works respect the integrity of the listed building. The demolition of the dilapidated parts of the building (and which are on no historic merit) is supported by the conservation officer. The Biodiversity Mitigation Plan has been approved by the Natural Environment Team at DCC and the recommendations will be incorporated within the development. A private SANG covering 6.5 ha of the Abbey grounds is to provide for the residents of the scheme in lieu of a Heathland Mitigation payment and the County Highways liaison officer has no objection to the proposal. There is also no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours which adjoin the site. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval upon completion of a s.106 Agreement to secure the following: (1) The phasing of the development and occupation of the enabling development (2) The provision and maintenance of the SANG within the Abbey grounds (3) Payment of the South East Transportation Contribution (4) The provision for the management and maintenance of the proposed allotment land (5) Details of the proposed management company for the management, maintenance and upkeep of the common parts of the Abbey, LAP and estate in general 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 plans listed on the drawing register received on the 19 September 2014.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning
Prior to commencement of any works on site to plots 23-47 samples of all bricks, roofing materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the dwellings hereby permitted, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To be satisfied about the details of the external appearance of the new dwellings.
3. Prior to commencement of works on site samples of all materials to be
used for hard landscaping, private driveways, shared surfaces, footpaths, garage courts or road surfaces shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All surfaces shall be installed as approved prior to the occupation of the dwelling or group of dwellings t0 which they are associated.
Reason: To ensure a good visual appearance to the overall development.
4. Prior to commencement of works on site, including any demolition or
preparatory ground works, a Construction Management Plan and programme of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include working hours, delivery hours and contractors' arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing, drainage and wheel wash facilities). The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.
Reason: In the interests of amenity of nearby residents and road safety..
5. Prior to commencement of works on site, proposals for soft landscaping of the
site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All proposed trees and shrubs shall be correctly described and their positions accurately shown. Upon approval 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. The landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years during which 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 locality.
6. Prior to commencement of works on site, full details of the means of enclosure
to each plot together with samples of any bricks and details of any colour stains for fencing shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such fencing and walling shall be erected before the dwelling to
which it relates is first occupied and maintained for a period of 5 years and any structural or decorative defects appearing during this period shall be rectified and thereafter the enclosure shall be retained.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and privacy.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Classes A, B, and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall take place on plots 23-47 (the enabling development) unless a specific planning permission is granted on an application made to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the local planning authority to control any additional development within the green belt
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within Classes A,B, C,D G and H of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall take place on plots 3, 4 and 5 - 20 (the converted dwellings) unless a specific planning permission is granted on an application made to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the local planning authority to have control over and maintain the integrity the listed building and outbuildings on the site and any additional development within the green belt
9. Prior to the commencement of development, at least 10% of the energy to
be used in the proposed new dwellings shall come from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details of the energy options, including any carbon efficiency savings through construction design shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved schemes shall be implemented in full and thereafter maintained.
Reason: In order to assist in meeting the UK's targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, in accordance with guidance of the National Planning Policy Framework
10. Prior to commencement of works on site, plans and particulars showing the
finished floor levels, related to ordnance datum or fixed point within the site, of the proposed ground floor of the proposed dwellings on plots 23 – 47 shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and development shall not be commenced until these details have been approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal having regard to the existing site levels and those adjacent hereto and to the need to prevent surface water flooding.
11. Prior to commencement of works on site full details of the layout and composition of the Local Area of Play shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the Play area meets appropriate standards for the safeguarding of children and crime prevention.
12. The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use without
complying with the provisions of the submitted 'Biodiversity Mitigation Plan' from Lindsay Carrington Ecological Services dated 25 May 2014, as certified approved by Dorset County Council - Natural Environment Team on 5 June 2014. The works and specifications outlined in this approved plan must be completed in full, unless any modifications to the agreed mitigation as a result of the requirements of a European Protected Species Licence, have first been agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the approved mitigation measures shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with these approved details, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To make provision for protected species in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
13. The annexe within the curtilage of plot 21 shall only be used ancillary to that
property and at no time shall the annexe be occupied as an independent unit or be sold off, let or disposed of separately without planning permission being first obtained.
Reason: To ensure that the annexe does not become an independent unit of accommodation within this green belt location and where new dwellings are consequently restricted.
14. Prior to any work taking place to provide the allotments, (including laying out of
the plots) full details of any proposed buildings, the construction of the car park and any means of enclosure to be erected on site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. No further buildings shall be erected or placed within the allotment area without prior permission in writing of the local planning authority. Reason: The application is not accompanied by sufficient information at this stage for the local planning authority to give proper consideration to these matters.
15. Before the development commences a scheme showing precise details of
both the access including the first 25 metres to the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall require approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be constructed before the development is utilised.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
16. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on Drawing Number 11-809-101-E have been constructed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
17. No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for
the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system.
18. No development approved by this permission shall be occupied or brought into
use until a scheme for the future responsibility and maintenance of the surface water drainage system has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved drainage works shall be completed and maintained in accordance with the details and timetable agreed. Reason: To ensure adequate adoption and maintenance and therefore better working and longer lifetime of surface water drainage schemes.
Informatives:
1. In reaching this decision the council has had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies HE1, HE2, HE3, LN2, LN3, ME1 and ME2 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 – Core Strategy 2014
2. This grant of permission is to be read in conjunction with the Legal Agreement
dated **** entered into between East Dorset District Council and ****.
3. The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council’s Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. They can be contacted by telephone at Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
4. The applicant should be advised that the Advance Payments Code under
Sections 219-225 of the Highways Act 1980 may apply in this instance. The
Code secures payment towards the future making-up of a private street prior to the commencement of any building works associated with residential, commercial and industrial development. The intention of the Code is to reduce the liability of potential road charges on any future purchasers which may arise if the private street is not made-up to a suitable standard and adopted as publicly maintained highway. Further information is available from Dorset County Council’s Developer-Led Infrastructure team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at Developer-Led Infrastructure, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
5. 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 as this may be an issue.
Item Number 3 Ref:
3/14/0246/LBC
Proposal:
Conversion of the existing building that forms the main Stapehill Abbey Complex and its curtilage buildings to 19 dwellings and the refurbishment of one dwelling. Demolition of a two storey element in the south east part of the complex extending to the flat roofed area behind the south range and demolition of the single storey elements in the north courtyard. The demolition of the museum building to the east of the Abbey complex and the erection of 25 dwellings together with associated modification to the existing access arrangements and the provision of car parking and garaging. The restoration by landscaping of the 250 vehicle car and coach park, the installation of a foul drainage system including a new pumping station and the provision of land amounting to approximately 1.87 hectares for use as allotments as amended by plans rec'd 18.9.14 showing revised layout and some changes to house types (for amended plans see application 3/14/0245/FUL)
Town Council Comments: Members requested that the town councils support for
this proposal and reasons for it be reported to the EDDC planning Committee. The planning committee had previously made a two hour inspection of the Abbey in July 2013 and at that time members were concerned at the evident deterioration to the fabric of the Abby which included
significant areas of damp and dry rot. Members now believe that the deterioration will have progressed subsequently especially during the very wet winter. They support the proposal as it will enable this important heritage asset to be restored and preserved. A number of councillors took part in the pre-application consultation and the committee noted the preponderance of favourable responses from residents. The proposal also includes a provision to make land available for allotments under a section 106 agreement. There are currently 20 residents on the Town Councils allotments waiting list and the provision would enable the council to meet its statutory obligations without the high cost of purchasing land. The town council is also in favour of the proposal as it would help meet the demand locally for prime housing. Although the site is currently designated as greenbelt, it is within easy reach of the town centres of Ferndown and Wimborne. The development would also be served more immediately by nearby shops in Stapehill. Members consider that the development would be well served by the tree bus routes operating along the Wimborne road and that the limited number of residential dwellings would not significantly increase the level of traffic in the area.
Consultee Responses: English Heritage A welcome and very useful report. On behalf of
English Heritage, I am pleased to say that we place full confidence in your approach. I am sure Henry VIII's commissioners never had such thoughtful comments at the earlier dissolution. Not being familiar with the site and not having picked this up from previous documentation, I am not clear if the screen you refer to as separating the 'two churches' separated the parish/public side from the nuns'/conventual side. Did a priest officiate a single altar that for the benefit of both parts or were there two parallel churches with a screen, one public one conventual? Either way, the screen would be one of the most significant aspects of the place; thus, in our view, its presence and purpose should be carefully considered and reflected in conversion proposals
The Council For British Archaeology
No comments received.
The Georgian Group No comments received. Victorian Society No comments received. The Society For The Protection Of Ancient Buildings
No comments received.
Ancient Monuments Society Thank you for your consultation - and for your email of
9th June, from which I construe that there is yet time to comment. We are grateful for sight of the documentation - although I fear that all the illustrations in the Design and Access Statement, as published on the web, were indecipherable. We comment as follows : 1. It is a disappointment that the documentation did not include a more detailed account of the history and interest of the complex. It would have been helpful to have much more on the Main Buildings, particularly on the earliest fabric, especially that dates from the arrival of the Cistercian nuns in 1801, and Our Lady of Dolours Chapel by Charles Hansom ( 1817-88 ). There is nothing on any fixtures or fittings and precious little on Hansom himself. He was part of a distinguished dynasty of Catholic archiitects, his major works being the great public schools at Clifton and Malvern. Stapehill, designed when he was 30, was one of his first works. There is great historic poetry in the survival of the two naves, that for the nuns alone being particularly evocative of their enclosed claustrophobic lives - the stalls facing each other sum this up better than anything else in the complex. Below is a flickr link to a photo taken in 2007 : http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberbia/2137442833/ 2. We infer from the relevant drawing that all of these stalls are torn out. This is a great shame and there is surely scope to keep this space intact as a poignant reminder of the convent. 3. Reference is made to "pods" set within both naves but in the absence of Sections it is not easy to see how they would appear.
4. We raise no objections to a measure of development at this complex, particularly on the site of the utilitarian museum building. Moreover we can welcome the designs of the various new houses which show understanding of historical precedent and proportion - traits that are not always manifest in modern executive housing. 5. However if this new build is being canvassed as "enabling development" to bridge a "conservation deficit", should not the evidence to support that be in the public domain? 6. Should the establishment of the service company to care for common parts and the grounds be made a condition of any listed building consent ? I hope that these observations may yet be taken into account.
County Highways Development Liaison Officer
No Objections
Officers Report: This application for Listed Building Consent is brought before the planning committee in tandem with the associated planning application (3/14/0345 above) for the above mentioned proposal and because there are more than 5 letters received which are contrary to your officer’s recommendation. At the time of writing, the application has generated 10 letters of representation (2 in support and 8 objections). Comments in support of the proposal point out that the conversion will preserve the Abbey and will minimise impact on the green belt and wildlife. The other letter of support is qualified by the comment that if the traffic volume is to be acceptable the Gypsy and Traveller site proposed in the locality should be dropped. With regard to the objections received they include: proposal contrary to green belt and core strategy policies; overdevelopment; excessive traffic generation; urban sprawl; will spoil visual landscape; precedent for future development in the green belt; allotments will be unsightly; will wildlife be protected; traffic congestion and pedestrian safety; loss of privacy to adjacent dwellings; should be owners responsibility to maintain and upkeep Abbey; Why is it a listed building?; sustainability issues; do we need additional housing in the area? Alternative uses seem to be rejected; and why is there need for change, it should remain as before. Introduction This application seeks Listed Building Consent to convert the existing Stapehill Abbey complex and curtilage buildings into 19 residential units and also to erect 25
dwellings within the grounds of the Abbey as 'enabling development' where the objective is to conserve and secure the future of the building which is a designated heritage asset. The former tractor museum erected in the early 90’s is also to be demolished. The Abbey, located on the outskirts of Ferndown, is a grade 2 listed building and lies within grounds of approximately 27 hectares and is situated within the green belt. The planning application report sets out the background to the proposal; the conversion proposals and the need for enabling development due to the ‘conservation deficit’ created. The above mentioned report also covers the relevant planning policies and guidance to be taken into account for both planning and listed building consent proposals and is therefore not repeated here. The proposal, in essence is in four parts:
• The conversion of the Abbey complex (including the double chapel and some of the curtilage buildings) into 19 residential units of various sizes to ‘best fit’ the structure. It should be noted that units 1 and 2 and 4 are existing dwellings on the site and not included in these figures although unit 4 will be altered internally as part of these proposals. Some demolition is involved to dilapidated parts of the Abbey building.
• The demolition of the former tractor museum and the construction of 13 new houses in its place;
• The erection of 9 new dwellings south of those located on the museum site within a former paddock area;
• The erection of 3 larger 'bespoke' dwellings on the western side of the formal garden area, again within a former paddock area.
The Design, Access and heritage statement (the Statement) submitted with the application notes that; 'The Abbey complex is greater than the sum of its parts in the sense that whilst much of it has rather mundane features, it historically is important and because of its past uses, it is a well-loved-heritage asset by the community' With regard to the conversion works the Statement notes that there are three areas of the building which have given rise to much discussion between the applicant and your officers: the conversion of the twin chapels, the main east/west corridor and the north courtyard area. In relation to the twin chapels the concept is to subdivide the space into two larger dwellings (unit 8 and 9) with minimum intervention into the structural fabric. The advantage of the twin chapel is the main roofs have a hidden valley, which provides opportunity to install roof lights to provide additional daylight, without impacting on the visible external appearance of the building. In essence the submitted drawings show the insertion of 'pods' into the two chapels to provide the living accommodation thus avoiding any significant disturbance to the fabric of this part of the Abbey.
Another issue raised at the outset of negotiations relating to the conversion was the condition of the east/west corridor and associated accommodation (currently located between proposed units 13 and 18). Early maps show a substantial glazed area running east to west over what amounts to a corridor between the earliest portion of the building and the accommodation along approximately two thirds of the south west elevation. Today, this area equates with a felted flat roof that continues to cause problems with rainwater penetration which then flows into the oldest part of the building. It is evident from the report submitted that this element needs to be taken down along with the building at the head of this corridor 'fronting' the south range. It is proposed to demolish this element of the building an open up the corridor to provide open air access to units 6-18. Within the north courtyard of the Abbey complex (attached to the east wall of the church) is a 'late addition' to the Church. This is a flat roof structure in fletton brickwork and the original roof detail has been lost. It is understood that this in turn has led to a flaw in the structure to the rear of the church where the inner corridor is adversely affected by rainwater penetration. Also on the south side of the north courtyard a recent, addition has been made post 1955 which currently houses the redundant kitchen which served the former tea rooms. The intention is to demolish the north courtyard late additions. The resultant courtyard is to be used as private space for the converted chapels with the remainder a communal area shared by the residential units adjacent. In consideration of this application both the applicant and your officers have followed the guidelines set out in the English Heritage document 'Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places'. Discussions have taken place with your officers over the past 18 months. The Council engaged the services of a local Conservation Consultant to provide conservation and design response to the application. The consultant produced an interim report which highlighted some unresolved issues and the need for the scheme to be amended with more details submitted. Following his initial comments, a number of meetings took place with the applicant, consultant and your Officer’s to satisfactory resolve some of the issues raised. The views of the Architects Panel were also taken on board. The consultant Conservation Officer's initial report was copied to English Heritage which raised the following comment included in its response: 'A welcome and very useful report. On behalf of English Heritage, I am pleased to say we place full confidence in your approach.' There is no doubt from the reports submitted that a significant amount of work (and cost) is required to renovate / repair this listed building and to secure its long term future. In this respect the conversion of the Abbey complex to residential is considered the optimum viable use of the building to deliver this proposal. It is considered that the conversion of the building into residential units retains the integrity of the listed building and is likely to be of high quality. The proposal to convert the two chapels (by the insertion of residential pods to provide the
accommodation) is both a sensitive and sensible way of dealing with this provision, avoiding any significant disturbance to the fabric of this part of the Abbey. The demolition of the single storey ‘late additions’ to the east wall of the church, and also on the south side of the northern courtyard will not affect the integrity of the listed building and are of no particular historic merit. Similarly, the removal of the felted flat roof which continues to give rise to rainwater penetration and the linked building at the ‘head of the corridor’ fronting the south elevation, is to be removed. These structures are again of no architectural or historic merit and will open up the corridor to provide access to the inner courtyard and adjacent units. In response to discussions, the applicants have submitted a supplementary paper in relation to the recording of Chattels, Artefacts and the Fabric of the building at the Abbey, The primary reason of the record being made is to;
• Inform the detail of the restoration and conservation works;
• To promote an understanding and appreciation of the building complex and to add to the information already available in this context
• To inform prospective purchasers of the building complex about the building
• To document and record those parts of the building proposed for demolition before removal
• To deposit a permanent record in an established archive.
This record is to be made a pre-condition of any building works taking place and is set out in the recommended conditions below. In conclusion it is considered that the conversion (and minor demolition works) do not significantly impact on this heritage asset and will put it to a viable use consistent with its conservation. This sensitive reuse and adaption of the Listed Building is acceptable and accords with Policy HE1 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan. It is therefore recommended that Listed Building be granted for the works subject to the following conditions. Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):- Conditions/Reasons:-
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 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 plans listed on the drawing register received on the 19 September 2014.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning
3. Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials to be used on
the listed building and associated outbuildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any on site works is commenced. In this respect a sample panel of the proposed brickwork shall be
constructed on site showing the bond and mortar type for prior approval. The approved brick panel shall be retained on site throughout the conversion works for comparison and reference purposes.
Reason : To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to maintain the integrity of the heritage asset.
4. Full details of the proposed rainwater goods to be employed on the face of the
Abbey and associated outbuildings shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before any development is commenced.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to maintain the integrity of the heritage asset.
5. Full details of the proposed fenestration (including roof windows; dormers, the
treatment of window openings and brick arches) to include joinery details at scale of not less than 1:10, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before any development is commenced and installed as approved and thereafter retained.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to maintain the integrity of the heritage asset.
6. Prior to any demolition taking place on the site, a method statement providing
full details of the means of demolition, and the treatment for ‘making good’ the retained walls shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: To ensure that there is no damage or alteration to the building beyond that approved by this permission.
No external vents (including roof vents), burglar alarms or CCTV cameras shall be installed to the external faces of the Abbey and outbuildings without prior permission in writing of the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to maintain the integrity of the heritage asset.
7. Prior to the commencement of any on site works, other than repairs (including associated scaffolding/shoring works) as may be specifically agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, a survey to record the fabric of the building shall be carried out, including any chattels and artefacts, in the rooms and common areas to Level 3 as described in the English Heritage Guidance: Understanding Historic Buildings – A guide to good recording practice which shall identify by reference to drawings, a written description and photographs of the various components(including panelling, windows, fireplaces, high seats, floors etc. and as amplified in the supplementary paper dated August 2014 on this topic by the applicant’s agent), together with recommendations about the future of these elements in the incorporation of the details of the conversion by retaining same [or for signposting for use elsewhere or recording and removal]. Such record to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, before any works
commence,, and thence the conversion shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in this record. The survey shall also extend to the areas to be demolished to provide a clear record of the elements to be removed. In the event that the approved record’s recommendations require review for any element, once works have commenced, then the revision shall be made in writing to the Local Planning Authority and the matter accordingly determined. No works shall be carried on that would pre-empt the determination of such a submission’s outcome by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To provide a historic record of the building and to inform the detail of the restoration and conversion works.
8. The record described in Condition 7 above shall be publicised, archived and made available and used in accordance with Section 6 of the supplementary paper dated August 2014 as submitted by the applicant’s agent covering this topic. In this respect the final details as identified in principle in Section 6 shall be submitted to and approved by the Council prior to the first occupation of any dwelling created in the ‘listed building’ complex. Reason: To provide a historic record of the building and to inform the detail of the restoration and conversion works.
Informative Note
In reaching this decision the council has had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies HE1, HE2, HE3, LN2, LN3, ME1 and ME2 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 – Core Strategy 2014
Item Number 4 Ref:
3/14/0487/COU
Proposal:
Construct 65m x 35m Lake to Join 2 Existing Ponds for Recreational Angling for Service People, New Access, Car Park and Storage Shed
Site Address:
Derelict Land, 300 SW Julians Bridge, Wimborne, for Mr Charles Thomas
Parish Comments: Objection on planning grounds stated below:
No details of the new access and car park construction or storage shed. Green Belt and Flood Plain. Development would upset Meadow Construction. What is happening with excavated soil. No local resident aware of the existing ponds
Consultee Responses: County Highways Development Liaison Officer
The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition(s): Before the development is commenced that part of the access within the public highway shall be laid out and re-constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Informative: The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council's Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
Environment Agency We have no objection to the proposed development
subject to the following conditions and informatives being included in any planning permission granted. Flood Risk The site is located in Flood Zone 3 (High Risk ) as defined under the National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance. We would also consider it to be Flood Zone 3 (functional floodplain) of the River Stour. Only certain types of development can be considered appropriate in the functional floodplain, in this case we would consider the development to be water compatible in accordance with National Planning Practice Guidance. The applicant has produced a limited Flood Risk Assessment to support the planning application and therefore we request the following: CONDITION The shall be no raising of ground levels in the flood plain above existing levels, and any excavated material must be removed to a location outside of the floodplain. REASON To prevent any increase e in flood risk associated with the development.
NOTE TO LPA You may require a predevelopment and post-development survey to confirm compliance with this condition. NOTE TO LPA / APPLICANT In view of the potential flood risks in this locality, we would advise that any developer of this site gives consideration to the use of flood resilient construction practices and materials in the design and build phase. Choice of materials and simple design modifications can make the development more resistant to flooding in the first place, or limit the damage and reduce rehabilitation time in the event of future inundation. You must ensure that the new structures are appropriately constructed to with stand the likely flood conditions in this area, and that any flood sensitive equipment is stored above the design flood level. Fisheries and Biodiversity The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that pursuing sustainable development includes moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature, and that a core principle for planning is that it should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. We have no objection to construction of the proposed lake and would give consent to stock it with all-female triploid brown trout if the following conditions are met:
- Valid health check prior to application for consent to introduce fish
- There is no hydraulic connection between the proposed lake and any existing watercourse
- An escape trench, as detailed in the proposal supporting information, is not installed, as this would provide a connection to the river which is not desired
- Stocked fish are prevented from escaping from the proposed lake during flood events.
The latter can be achieved by surrounding the lake with a fence of 12mm maximum gap. The River Stour at Wimborne provides one of very few salmon spawning sites in this river and it is important that we protect this habitat from the introduction of triploid trout. CONDITION: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for fencing the lake, has been submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The plan shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details and agreed timetable. REASON: To protect the local environment NOTES TO APPLICANT With regards to fish welfare, the Environment Agency recommends that enough time is left for conditions to mature before fish are introduced to a new fishery. A newly dug lake seldom provides a suitable habitat or adequate food for newly introduced fish. The level of stocking into the proposed lake needs to be considered and we are happy provide advice on these matters. Since the lake will be fed by springs and ground water seepage, we recommend the applicant considers arrangements to protect stocked fish during prolonged periods of hot weather, prior to stocking. Natural colonisation or planting using native species of aquatic plants will provide good levels of oxygen, and provision of deeper areas and shading from over-hanging vegetation will help to lower water temperature and reduce the likelihood of oxygen levels crashing. However, during prolonged periods of hot weather it may be necessary to increase oxygen levels in the lake using a water pump. These can be readily hired if the need arises. In addition, we would like to draw the applicant’s attention to the pre-application advice given in our letter of 11 February 2013 regarding otter predation. We would be happy to offer further advice in regards to the design of the pond to maximise biodiversity. Oil and Chemical Storage INFORMATIVE Oil or chemical storage facilities should be sited in bunded areas. The capacity of the bund should be at least 10% greater than the capacity of the storage tank or, if more than one tank is involved, the capacity of the largest tank within the bunded area. Hydraulically inter-linked tanks should be regarded as a single tank. There should be no working connections outside the bunded area. NOTES TO APPLICANT Pollution Prevention During Construction Safeguards should be implemented during the
construction phase to minimise the risks of pollution and detrimental effects to the water interests in and around the site. Such safeguards should cover the use of plant and machinery, oils/chemicals and materials; the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles; the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds and the control and removal of spoil and wastes. We recommend the applicant refer to our Pollution Prevention Guidelines, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pollution-prevention-guidance-ppg Waste Management If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. If the applicant require more specific guidance it is available on our website https://www.gov.uk/how-to-classify-different-types-of-waste
Safeguarding Officer No Safeguarding objection to the proposal County Archaeological Officer
i) The site is on a floodplain, which historically was not conducive to permanent settlement, although the area could have been used for other purposes; ii) There are two ponds on the site, and the sides of these give a section through the site's subsoil. The latter is mostly clay, which again is not conducive to human habitation because of its poor drainage. iii) Watermeadows were an important feature of many of the lower valleys of the chalk rivers in Dorset. However, I saw none of the earthworks belonging to watermeadow systems on the land around the present site. There were also none visible on the site itself, although conceivably these could be present but hidden by vegetation. iv) There has been a fair amount of previous ground disturbance on the site - including the excavation of the ponds and the laying of areas of hardstanding. None of these points in themselves indicate that there is no significant archaeological material on the site, but taken together, in my opinion, they do indicate a low potential for such remains. Under these circumstances, I suggest that our site meeting
constituted an archaeological assessment of the proposed development, and from it I draw the conclusion that archaeology is not a matter that needs to be taken into account when this application is determined.
Officers Report: This application comes to committee as the Officer’s recommendation conflicts with the Parish Council's comments. The application is for the construction of a lake measuring 65m x 35m with small car park for up to 4 cars and small maintenance shed measuring 4m long, 2m wide and 3m tall. The lake is to be used for recreational angling for Royal Marine servicemen, and will be provided by the Royal Marine Charitable Trust and Help for Heroes. The applicant has confirmed that the lake is to be used for a maximum of 3 days per year where a 12 seater minibus will bring anglers. There are 2 small overgrown ponds at the site with raised banks and the site is overgrown with some unauthorised dumping of waste materials evident. The site is accessed via an unsurfaced track that joins Mill Street which leads into Julians Road and then Wimborne. The lake is to be formed with no bunds to form its banks and there will be no islands. The site is in the Green Belt, countryside and flood plain Flood Zone 3 (defined as land having a 1 in 100 year or greater annual probability of river flooding) of the River Stour. Policy The advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, national Planning Practice Guidance 2014 and Policies KS12, ME1, ME6, HE2 and HE3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy is relevant to the proposal. The main issues are considered to be the impact on the Green Belt, impact on flooding, impact on the landscape, impact on highway safety and impact on archaeology. Impact on the Green Belt The proposal represents 'appropriate development' in the Green Belt as it is a form of outdoor recreation and the only building proposed is considered to be an appropriate facility for outdoor sport (given its small size) which will preserve the openness of the Green Belt, and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. As appropriate development, the proposal accords with Section 9 of the NPPF which deals with proposals in the Green Belt.
Impact on flooding The site is in Flood Zone 3 of the River Stour. For the purpose of assessing the proposal in terms of its impact on flooding, the proposal represents 'water compatible' development (being water-based recreation) in the government's Planning Practice Guidance (Flood Risk and Coastal Change). Therefore it is an appropriate use of this Flood Zone. The application includes a Flood Risk Assessment following pre-application advice from the Environment Agency (EA). This states that there will be no bunding around the lake, the car park surface will be permeable, all the excavated material will be removed from the site, the lake level will be lower than existing ground levels, and the general ground levels are not to be altered around the lake. This approach was advised by the Environment Agency before the application was made, when the applicant sought pre-application advice. The EA has no objection to the proposal and has advised conditions, which officers have revised and imposed to achieve the EA’s aims. Impact on the landscape The site lies adjacent to a belt of trees and hedging that forms the north west boundary of Mill Street/Julians Road and cannot be seen from this direction. There are views available from the north and west, however, the proposal is not considered likely to have an adverse impact on the landscape with the lake, small car park and maintenance shed in place. Policy HE1 of the CS is complied with. Impact on highway safety The proposed use of the site will be low-key and infrequent as it will be used solely for angling for up to 5 days per year. This will entail 2 minibuses on each occasion bringing anglers to the site. There is an existing vehicular access onto Mill Street from the site and the visibility in either direction from this is good. No highway safety issues are raised in this respect by Dorset County Council Highways. DCC has required the part of the access within the public highway be reconstructed with its agreement as part of a planning condition, and this condition is set out in the recommended conditions. Transportation contributions The limited number of vehicle trips proposed is not considered to require transportation contributions under the South East Dorset Transportation Contribution Scheme, as they are unlikely to be greater than that generated by the site in its current use (general maintenance etc.).
Impact on archaeology Dorset County Council's Senior Archaeologist has advised that the site is on a floodplain, which historically was not conducive to permanent settlement, although the area could have been used for other purposes; He states that there are two ponds on the site, and their sides give a section through the site's subsoil. The subsoil is mostly clay, which is not conducive to human habitation because of its poor drainage. He has advised that water meadows were an important feature of many of the lower valleys of the chalk rivers in Dorset. However, there were none of the earthworks belonging to water meadow systems on the land around the site, and none visible on the site itself. He notes that there has been a fair amount of previous ground disturbance on the site, including the excavation of the ponds and the laying of areas of hard standing. He concludes that none of these points in themselves indicate that there is no significant archaeological material on the site, but taken together, in his opinion, they do indicate a low potential for such remains. Under these circumstances, and having visited the site where he undertook an archaeological assessment of the proposed development, he concludes that archaeology is not a matter that needs to be taken into account when the application is determined. Conclusion The proposal is an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt being for outdoor recreation, with a small building (shed) which is an appropriate facility for this use. It accords with Green Belt policy accordingly. The proposal is an appropriate form of development for its location in a flood plain, and will not have an adverse impact on the landscape, highway safety or archaeology. The recommendation is for approval. 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:
1:1250 Location Plan 1:2500 Location Plan (Lake area shown indicatively only) 1:500 Site Plan
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 There shall be no raising of ground levels above existing levels in the Flood
Plain, and all spoil arising from the development hereby approved shall be removed from the site within a period of 3 months from the completion of the excavation works to form the lake, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Ground level surveys of the application site shall be undertaken before works commence and when works are completed, and these shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority following the completion of the works.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, openness of the Green Belt and to prevent interruption of flood water flows to prevent any increase e in flood risk associated with the development.
4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use
Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), or any subsequent re-enactment, the site shall be used for recreational angling only and for no other purpose.
Reason: To allow the Council control over the site in the interests of minimising any impact on the Green Belt, and highway safety.
5 The number of vehicles parked at the site shall not exceed 5 at any one
time, and these vehicles shall only be parked in the area marked as car park on the approved plans.
Reason: To control the number and position of parked vehicles at the site in the interests of minimising the impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
6 There shall be no more than 5 visits to the site per year by vehicles
bringing anglers (equating to 10 vehicle movements). In this respect the applicant shall keep an up-to-date record of the number of visits to the site for the Local Planning Authority's (LPA) inspection. In the event of a request for this information, the applicant shall provide it to the LPA within 7 working days of the request, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To restrict the vehicle movements generated by the proposal on the local highway network and to minimise the impact on the Green Belt.
7 Prior to its erection at the site, scale plans of the approved maintenance
shed (4m long, 2m wide and 3m tall) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The shed shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 8 Before the development is commenced that part of the access within the
public highway shall be laid out and re-constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
9 Prior to introducing any fish into the approved lake, a fence shall be
erected around the lake in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Environment Agency. Thereafter the approved fence shall be retained as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
Reason: To protect stocked fish escaping into the River Stour during flooding.
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; o offering a pre-application advice service, and o 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:
o the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, o the applicant was provided with pre-application advice, o The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.
2 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy
Framework 2012, national Planning Practice Guidance 2014 and Policies KS12, ME1, ME6, HE2 and HE3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy in the determination of the application.
3 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of
the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council's Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ
4 The applicant is advised to contact the Fisheries Section of the
Environment Agency before any fish are stocked in the lake to obtain the necessary consents.
5 In view of the potential flood risks in this locality, the developer of this site
is advised to consider the use of flood resilient construction practices and materials in the design and build phase. Choice of materials and simple design modifications can make the development more resistant to flooding in the first place, or limit the damage and reduce rehabilitation time in the event of future inundation. it should be ensured that new structures are appropriately constructed to with stand the likely flood conditions in this area, and that any flood sensitive equipment is stored above the design flood level.
6 The Environment Agency has confirmed that it has no objection to
construction of the proposed lake and would give consent to stock it with all-female triploid brown trout if the following conditions are met:
- Valid health check prior to application for consent to introduce fish - There is no hydraulic connection between the proposed lake and any existing watercourse - An escape trench, as detailed in the proposal supporting information, is not installed, as this would provide a connection to the river which is not desired - Stocked fish are prevented from escaping from the proposed lake during flood events.
The latter can be achieved by surrounding the lake with a fence of 12mm
maximum gap. The River Stour at Wimborne provides one of very few salmon spawning sites in this river and it is important that we protect this habitat from the introduction of triploid trout.
7 With regards to fish welfare, the Environment Agency (EA) recommend that
enough time is left for conditions to mature before fish are introduced to a new fishery. A newly dug lake seldom provides a suitable habitat or adequate food for newly introduced fish. The level of stocking into the proposed lake needs to be considered and the EA is happy provide advice on these matters.
Since the lake will be fed by springs and ground water seepage, the EA
recommend the applicant considers arrangements to protect stocked fish during prolonged periods of hot weather, prior to stocking. Natural colonisation or planting using native species of aquatic plants will provide good levels of oxygen, and provision of deeper areas and shading from over-hanging vegetation will help to lower water temperature and reduce the likelihood of oxygen levels crashing. However, during prolonged periods of hot weather it may be necessary to increase oxygen levels in the lake using a water pump. These can be readily hired if the need arises.
In addition, the EA would like to draw the applicant's attention to the pre-
application advice given in our letter of 11 February 2013 regarding otter predation.
Please note that the EA would be happy to offer further advice in regards to the design of the pond to maximise biodiversity.
8 Oil or chemical storage facilities should be sited in bunded areas. The
capacity of the bund should be at least 10% greater than the capacity of the storage tank or, if more than one tank is involved, the capacity of the largest tank within the bunded area. Hydraulically inter-linked tanks should be regarded as a single tank. There should be no working connections outside the bunded area.
9 Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to
minimise the risks of pollution and detrimental effects to the water interests in and around the site.
Such safeguards should cover the use of plant and machinery,
oils/chemicals and materials; the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles; the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds and the control and removal of spoil and wastes. The EA recommend the applicant refer to its Pollution Prevention Guidelines, which can be found at:https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pollution-prevention-guidance-ppg
10 If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then site operator must
ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. If the applicant require more specific guidance it is available on the EA website https://www.gov.uk/how-to-classify-different-types-of-waste
Item Number 5 Ref:
3/14/0659/FUL
Proposal:
Extension to Dwelling to Form Granny Annex with Staff Facilities Over
Site Address:
Forest Edge Nurseries, Verwood Road, Woodlands, for Mr D Edge
Constraints: Bournemouth International Airport Bird Strike, Heathland 5 Kilometre, Area of Great landscape Value, ECON2, Greenbelt, NATS Technical Sites
Site Notice expired: N/A
Advert Expiry Date: N/A
Nbr-Nfn expired: 27 August 2014
Parish Comments: SUPPORT: Knowlton Parish Council considers the
application is fully justified given the clear supporting professional information included as part of the application. This plus the fact that the applicant has had a local business established at the site for many years and therefore we do not consider it unreasonable to provide professionally presented office facilities which we consider to be of modest size
and in keeping with scale and topography of the site from where the business is being conducted from. Knowlton Parish Council does not consider the application adversely affects the openness of the greenbelt.
Officers Report: This application is brought before Planning Committee because the Knowlton Parish Council support the proposal, contrary to the Officer recommendation. Consultee Responses: County Highways Officer: No objection to the proposal Officers Report: Site and surroundings The site is set back from the public highway, Verwood Road, which runs through the small settlement village of Woodlands and behind other dwellings and land in relation to the road, so that it is quite isolated in the context of its surroundings. In addition, there is a screen of mature trees and a thick hedge along the site’s western boundary, as well as woodland planting around the other sides of the site meaning that it is well-screened from its surroundings. The dwelling on site is not readily visible from the access track leading up to it, or from the nearest dwelling 'The Firs', which is also served by this track. The Case Officer visited the site on 18 November, 2013, met the applicant and toured the site, noting the areas used for preparation and packaging contained in two large shed/workshops, the planting out areas - both to the rear of the dwelling and the land surrounded by woodland on the opposite side of the access track to the site, the polytunnels - approximately 26 in all, including uncovered frames, and the static caravan sited adjacent to the main shed/workshop which is presently used as a staff room/staff toilet facility. Planning History 03/81/0676/HST - Retain Caravan - approved 21/8/81 03/82/0022/HST - Erection of Agricultural Dwelling - Outline. Approved 26/2/1982. 03/85/1513/HST - One Sign - approved 9/9/1985. 03/00/0727/FUL - Agricultural Shed - Approved - 18/8/2000. 3/08/0384/FUL - Remove Agricultural Occupancy Condition - Refused - 13/5/08 3/08/1071/FUL - Remove Agricultural Occupancy Condition - Refused - 30/10/08 3/09/0243/FUL - Remove Agricultural Occupancy Condition - Approved - 9/6/09 Applicants Requirements The applicant is seeking to expand the business on site by increasing production from the present land-holding rather than acquiring more land. Forest Edge Nurseries specialises in the production of heathers with products being transported nationwide. The nearest main competitor Nursery specialising in heather production is Kingfisher
Nursery in Spalding, Lincs, about 200 miles away, and Combe Florey Nursery in Somerset - approximately 70 miles away. John Hall Plants Ltd at Whitehall Nurseries, Borden, Hants, would appear to be the nearest competitor at 60 miles away. The applicant has also advised that a Heather Producer (unspecified) in Scotland had recently closed, (as at November, 2013) and that there had been an increased demand for Heather products as a result. In helping to achieve economies of scale, there is a delivery arrangement with other plant producers in the locality in place to share deliveries and costs which is more cost effective than individual deliveries. This allows for part loads to be transported to customers at reasonable rates. Forest Edge Nursery is not open to the public, and there are no retail sales from site. It deals with wholesale customers only. Staff numbers comprise the applicant working full-time on the holding and currently employing two full-time members of staff, both of whom live locally in Ferndown and Ringwood. There is no need for the employees to live on site. Site security is a concern given that the main shed/workshop and packaging buildings are not readily observed from the dwelling, and the present caravan used as a staff room is tucked up against one side of the main shed/workshop. Whilst this allows for observation of the access to these two work buildings, it does not allow for observation of the site access where visitors to the site/dwelling and parking area to the front would be expected to park. Besides providing improved staff facilities and office accommodation, the applicants other requirement is a pressing need to provide annexe accommodation for his Mother who is elderly and requires close care and supervision. The proposed accommodation outlined on Drawing No. 1959/04 indicates an extension to the existing dwelling attached by a ground floor link from the Study into the living room of the annexe. Existing Dwelling Measures approximately 12.5m wide x 8.8m deep x 7.6m to the ridge and 2.5m to the eaves. Footprint = 110.25m2. Ground floor area = 12.5m wide x 8.8m deep = 110m2; Back porch area = 4.5m x 1.5m = 6.75m2 First floor area = 6.5m x 12.5 = 78m2 Total Existing Floor area = 110 + 6.75 + 78 = 194.75m2. Ground floor: entrance hall, kitchen, utility room, w/c and cupboard, sitting room and study. First floor: Four bedrooms, separate bathroom and separate shower room New Extension The new building/extension will measure approximately 12.4m long x 7.0m wide x 2.5m to the eaves and 6.4m to the ridge. The link will be approximately 1.6 wide x 6.1m long including porch and is proposed to be attached to the study of the dwelling.
Floor area 4.8m wide x 12.4m long. 59.52m2 (excluding link and external staircase) Footprint = 86.8m2. Proposed Floor area = Footprint + First Floor area = 143.62m2. The link provides for outdoor access to the kitchen of the extension that leads into the living room of the extension which in turn leads via an internal door to the study in the also provide the following accommodation: Ground floor - living room, bedroom and bathroom, with an adjacent carer’s bedroom and en-suite shower room; First floor - staff amenities area (with 'tea station') sink/kettle/fridge/storage cupboards etc. two storage cupboards; Nursery office and en-suite staff shower and w/c facilities. Floor area = 78m2 The design of the extension reflects that of the dwelling with a steeply pitched roof, and a dormer window serving the staff shower, plus four rooflights to the west facing roof slope - two each serving the Nursery Office and storage and staff amenities area; and, two rooflights in the east facing roof slope also serving the Office. The Nursery Office and the entire first floor accommodation is proposed to be accessed via an external staircase attached to the front/north elevation of the extension. The dwelling has three dormers to the front (north) facing roof slope, each serving a bedroom. Planning Policy The site lies in open countryside outside the Village Settlement Boundary for Woodlands. It lies in the South East Dorset Green Belt and within an Area of Great Landscape Value. Certain of the Council's planning policies contained in the East Dorset District Local Plan 2002, are 'saved' and are of relevance to this application. Otherwise, planning policy for the District is contained in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014, which reflects, and in part, rehearses the Local Plan Policies. Central Government advice is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) particularly at Section 3 'Supporting a prosperous rural economy; Section 7 'Requiring good design'; and, Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land'. In the Local Plan the following saved Policies are of relevance: Policy GB3 advises: Within the Green Belt, extensions to or replacements of existing dwellings will only be allowed where: (a) the extension or the replacement dwelling does not materially change the impact of the dwelling on the openness of the green belt, especially through its height or bulk; and (b) the size and scale of a proposed extension does not dominate the existing dwelling; and
(c) the size of any garage building must be commensurate with the replaced or extended property. Any space above ground floor should be limited solely to storage use. Such space should not be capable of later conversion to residential use. Policy HODEV4 advises: Extensions to existing dwellings to provide semi self-contained accommodation (granny annexes) will be permitted where a separate dwelling would not be acceptable and where: (a) an extension of that scale would be acceptable under other planning policies; and (b) its dependence on the existing dwelling is established by physical arrangements and, where necessary, planning condition; and (c) its incorporation as part of the existing dwelling when no longer needed for its original purpose is secured. HE3 relates to landscape Quality and replaces Local Plan Policy LSCON2 PC4 replaces CSIDE 1 Core Strategy Policy PC4 outlined on p. 183 of the Core Strategy is supportive of such proposals. It replaces LP Pol. CSIDE1. It relates to applications for economic development in the open countryside. Policy PC4 states: 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. Proposals for the conversion and re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside for economic development and tourist related uses, must ensure: - The proposal supports the vitality and viability of rural service centres and villages with existing facilities. - Proposals must not adversely impact the supply of employment sites and premises and the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the area, when considering proposals which involve the loss of economic activity. - Proposals do not have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it. - The benefits outweigh the harm in terms of: 1. The potential impact on countryside, landscapes and wildlife. 2. Development is compatible with the pursuit of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) purposes, which are set out in the AONB Management Plan. 3. Local economic and social needs and opportunities not met elsewhere.
4. Settlement patterns and the level of accessibility to service centres, markets and housing. 5. The building is suitable for the proposed use without major re-building and would not require any significant alteration which would damage its fabric and character, or detract from the local characteristics and landscape quality of the area. Any necessary car parking provision should also not have an adverse impact on the setting of the building in the open countryside. 6. The preservation of buildings of historic or architectural importance/interest, or which otherwise contributes to local character. Proposals for the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses will be supported which meet the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and also that: Are consistent in scale and environmental impact with their rural location avoiding adverse impacts on sensitive habitats, Areas of Great Landscape Value and landscapes identified through landscape character assessments and the openness of the Green Belt. Conserve the landscape quality and scenic beauty of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB, and comply with the provisions of the AONB Management Plan. Do not harm amenity and enjoyment of the countryside through the impact of noise and traffic generation. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Section 9 of the NPPF 'Protecting Green Belt land' advises that apart from excepted development. Paragraphs 87 and 88 advise: "87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 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. Paragraph 89 (in part) advises: "89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: “the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;"
Summary of issues Principle of development It can be argued that the Nursery is an agricultural holding as it uses agricultural land for the production of crops (albeit non-food crops) and the provision of staff accommodation is excepted development in the context of the NPPF guidance. It is noted, however, that application Ref: 3/09/0243/FUL successfully sought removal of the agricultural occupancy condition relating to the dwelling, and it is now no longer tied to agriculture, forestry or horticulture. Counter to this is the applicant’s requirement for annexe accommodation for a dependent relative, and in this regard, the provisions of Local Plan Policies GB3 and HODEV4 take precedence. Given the site’s location in the South East Dorset Green Belt which was designated on 5th February 1980, and the development of the dwelling on site from circa 1982, the Council's view is that Very Special Circumstances to justify the size and scale of the development proposed and the relationship it has to the dwelling are required for it to be justified as an exception to Green Belt Policy, as outlined above. In respect of the annexe accommodation, this would not comply with the provisions of either Policy GB3 or HODEV4. Whilst the Council appreciates the applicants desire to do the best to provide accommodation for his Mother, and to provide her with comfortable, secure surroundings, that meet her care requirements, the annexe accommodation represents a permanent solution to a short term issue. It is difficult to see how the annexe living accommodation could be used in the future, as it would be very easy to seal up the link between the Study within the main dwelling, and for the annexe which has kitchen, living room, bedroom and bathroom facilities, to become a separate unit of living accommodation. As the site is well-screened and fairly remote from other development, it could not be readily monitored. The Council does not have the resources to monitor the occupancy of annexe accommodation to ensure that it is lawfully occupied, so to condition that the annexe be retained as linked accommodation to the dwelling would be difficult to enforce. The provisions of parts a, b and c of Policy HODEV4 would not be met. Given this, it is difficult to envisage that the Council would consent to an annexe as proposed in these circumstances. At the pre-application stage, the applicant was advised to consider a more modest extension that was better related to the dwelling. Whilst what has been submitted represents an improvement in terms of its physical attachment to the dwelling, it would not utilise its facilities; and, could not be readily absorbed into the main accommodation of the dwelling once its initial requirement to house a dependent relative has passed. It is effectively, in the Council's consideration, a separate dwelling. The Council advised at the pre-application stage that a smaller annexe, which is more closely related to the dwelling, the shared use of facilities, and the potential for its re-use as an extension to the dwelling, be considered by the applicant but this advice has been ignored. With regard to the proposed staff accommodation, the Council notes why the applicant wishes to locate it above the proposed annexe as it would aid security from its elevated position by allowing observation of the Nursery site and the vehicular access to the holding, as well as providing new staff facilities. The present staffroom facilities are located in a static caravan adjacent to the main workshop/packing building on the site. As there is no requirement for staff to live on the site, either the static caravan can be relocated to the position of the proposed new building - which
would allow for connection to services, and observation of the site access, or the provision of staff accommodation more closely related to the existing buildings on site should be considered. As submitted, the annexe and staff accommodation represent a sizeable extension to the existing dwelling with an approximate footprint of 80% of the main dwelling on site, and a size and form of commensurable scale and proportions. This is not a subservient addition to the dwelling. It is noted that the ground floor area of the annexe accommodation on its own covers 86.8m2 compared to a floor area of 194.75m2 for both floors of the dwelling. Purely in respect of residential accommodation this represents a floor area increase of 44.5%. However, the floorspace figures for both the annexe and the staff accommodation together amount approximately 80% of the dwellings floorspace area, and this is considered to be excessive in terms of overall floorspace, scale and proportion. As such, the proposed annexe/staff accommodation extension is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt, that would be harmful to the provisions of Local Plan Policy GB3 and would be contrary to the advice contained in the supporting text to this Policy at paragraphs 6.101 and 6.102 in the Local Plan, which indicate that extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt should not be greater than 50% of the gross residential floor area of the dwelling. In principle, the Council concludes that this proposed development would be inappropriate in this location and would be contrary to the Guidance relating to Green Belts outlined in the NPPF; and, Council's planning policies relating to development in the Green Belt as outlined in Saved Local Plan Policy GB3; and, Saved Local Plan Policy HODEV4 relating to annexe accommodation and, Core Strategy Policy KS3. Very Special Circumstances (VSC) The site lies within the South East Dorset Green Belt and the general policies that control development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved, except in Very Special Circumstances (VSC). Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very Special Circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. National Planning Policy Guidance in respect of development in Green Belts is contained in The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2102 at Section 9. This outlines policies in respect of development in Green Belts. Section 9, Paragraph 79 of the NPPF advises that the overriding purpose of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that: "as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances."
Paragraph 88 advises: "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 outweighed by other considerations". It further advises at Paragraph 89 that in exceptions in respect of the construction of new buildings in Green Belts that may be appropriate are where they are for: - Agriculture or forestry; - Outdoor sport, recreation or for cemeteries providing the openness of the Green belt is maintained; - The extension of a building provided it is not result in disproportionate additions to the original building; - The replacement of a building provided it is for the same use and is not materially larger than the one it replaces; - Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or - Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. The construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for a number of purposes. (Set out above in Paragraph 89 of the NPPF) The proposal in part accords with the purpose of agriculture or forestry and in part, (the first floor staff accommodation), therefore, it is classed as appropriate development within the Green Belt. However, the proposed extension is judged as a whole, and as indicated in the 'Principle of Development' section above, the applicant has not demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that the harm, by reason of its inappropriateness and any other harm is outweighed by the existence of any VSC. It is acknowledged that the site operates as a Nursery and has done for more than 30 years. However, it is also noted that the dwelling on the site, which was originally the subject of an agricultural occupancy condition, had this tie removed by the applicant (See application Ref: 3/09/0243/FUL). Reasons given for this were that the applicant sought to sell the business as the constraints of the site; limited land area and narrow access; did not allow for any expansion. Whilst the business was in the applicants words 'extremely viable' in its own right, the Council accepted that the need for the dwelling on site had ceased as the applicant was in the unique position of having outgrown the site. This was the third application that sought the release of the Agricultural Occupancy Condition. The applicant did not in the end sell the business or dwelling and the dwelling is 'untied' to the Nursery Holding on site. The Very Special Circumstances that the applicant appears to have put forward are, namely:
• The removal of the of the static mobile home from the site
• The office facilities will be sited above the annexe accommodation lessening
the overall impact of the development on the Green Belt;
• The new facilities will be of benefit to Nursery employees
• The annexe will provide the applicants mother with the desired close care
accommodation and enable the applicant to organise her care around the
running of the Nursery.
These are not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt, as advised in part of Paragraph 89 of the NPPF. Paragraph 89 (in part) advises: "89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: - the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;". The Council considers that the additions are disproportionate additions to the original dwelling. The District Council, as decision-maker is also required to apply substantial weight to other aspects of harm to the green belt where these harms relate to either the purposes of the green belt (see Para 80 of the NPPF) or the objectives of the green belt (set out in Para 81). All other (non-green belt) harm caused by the development, for example the impact of the proposal on visual amenity, will also be given weight, although not necessarily "substantial weight". Against this assessment of harm, the Council has assessed both the mitigation of that harm (the removal of the static mobile home adjacent to the nursery building workshop and the tidying of and potential visual improvement of the site) and the need for (and benefits of) the proposal - the potential for the improved operation of the Nursery site, and the provision of annexe accommodation for the applicants Mother who requires close care accommodation. The erection of the extension to provide annexe accommodation and staff facilities, as proposed by the application has already been considered to be unacceptable as outlined above. Consequently, there are considered to be no Very Special Circumstances (VSC) afforded by this application, including the considerations that the proposal will improve site security that warrants a departure from the District Council's normal policy of restraint and presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Design and Visual Impact The design of the extension reflects that of the dwelling with its steeply pitched roof. The site is well screened by boundary trees and is divorced from adjoining residential properties. It is not readily visible from the public realm being located along a private track. Ordinarily, the design is considered to be acceptable, and the visual impact on the rural character of the site and surroundings would be limited. Impact on Neighbours Amenities The dwelling on site is divorced from adjoining residential properties, and there would be no demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of occupants of any nearby dwellings.
Highway Safety and Parking There would be no adverse impact from increased traffic movements Dorset CC _ Highways has raised no objection. It can be argued that the removal of the static mobile home would allow more space on site for the parking, turning and manoeuvring of vehicles. Conclusion The application should be refused as the proposal represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt contrary to the provisions of saved Local Plan Policies GB3 and HODEV4; and Core Strategy Policies HE2, KS3 and PC4. The proposal would provide staff facilities attached to the dwelling on site connected with the Nursery Use of the site, where the dwelling is un-connected with that use (See application Ref: 3/09/0243/FUL). Whilst the applicant may have decided not to sell the Nursery and dwelling following the removal of the dwellings agricultural occupancy condition, there has been no offer by the applicant to tie the dwelling, annexe and staff accommodation to the site. Whilst the applicant has offered to tie the occupancy of the annexe to the dwelling, the layout of the annexe accommodation is such that it could easily be occupied as a separate unit of living accommodation once the requirement for it as annexe accommodation has passed. The applicant has not demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that the harm, by reason of its inappropriateness and any other harm is outweighed by the existence of any Very Special Circumstances. Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):- Conditions/Reasons:- 1 The proposed development by way of an extension to the existing dwelling to provide ground floor annexed accommodation for a dependent relative; and first floor staff accommodation for staff working on site at Forest Edge Nursery, is unacceptable by reason of its size and scale as it represents inappropriate development within the South East Dorset Green Belt contrary to the provisions of saved Policy GB3 and its supporting text, and Saved Policy HODEV4 contained in the South East Dorset Local Plan 2002; and, the provisions of Polices KS3, HE2, and PC4 contained in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014. In addition, the proposal fails to reflect the advice contained in Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land' contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012, particularly that contained in part of Paragraph 89 which advises that: "the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;". 2 The proposed development of the site for the erection of an extension to the
existing dwelling to provide ground floor annexed accommodation for a dependent relative; and first floor staff accommodation for staff working on site at Forest Edge Nursery, is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Very Special Circumstances that the applicant has put forward, are not considered by the Council to be sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by reason of its inappropriateness, namely:
• the removal of the of the static mobile home from the site;
• that the Nursery office facilities will be sited above the annexe
accommodation lessening the overall impact of the development on the
Green Belt;
• the new facilities will be of benefit to Nursery employees;
• the annexe will provide the applicant’s Mother with the desired close care
accommodation and enable the applicant to organise her care around the
running of the Nursery
This harm is also not outweighed by the other considerations put forward by the applicant in the application and the proposal is, therefore, contrary to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular Paragraphs 79, 80, 88, 89 and 90, and to the provisions of Saved Policy GB3 of the East Dorset District Plan 2002; and, the provisions of Policies KS3, and PC4 contained in the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014.
3 Notwithstanding the above reasons for refusal, whilst the applicant has offered to tie the occupancy of the annexe to the dwelling, the layout of the annexe accommodation is such that it could easily be occupied as a separate unit of living accommodation once the requirement for it as annexe accommodation has passed. This is contrary to the provisions of Saved Policy HODEV4 contained in the East Dorset District Local Plan 2002, which seeks to control annexe development and in part to ensure the incorporation of any annexe permitted as part of the existing dwelling when no longer needed for its original purpose is secured. The applicant has not demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that the design and layout of the annexe accommodation complies with the requirements of this particular policy. 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 sought pre-application advice and was advised that the
proposal was unlikely to prove acceptable.
2 The Council has had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and
Policies HE2, HE3, KS3, and PC4 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy, Adopted April, 2014 and saved Policies GB3 and HODEV4 in the East Dorset District Local Plan 2002.
Item Number 6 Ref:
3/14/0666/HOU
Proposal:
Retain enclosure around Astro Turf Pitch and retain zip wire. (For information it is advised that it is only that part of the enclosure over two metres in height that requires express planning permission
Site Address:
21 Avon Castle Drive, Avon Castle, Ringwood, for Intelligent Land
Constraints: Bournemouth International Airport Bird Strike, Heathland 5 Kilometre, Special Character Area, Urban Area. NATS Technical Site
Site Notice expired: 17 August 2014
Advert Expiry Date: N/A
Nbr-Nfn expired: N/A
Parish Comments: Object
The proposal impinges on the amenity value of neighbouring properties. Noise and stress will be caused by use of this facility. Visually intrusive to neighbouring properties. Totally out of keeping in this Special Character Area. We are concerned about the impact on the tree which the zip wire is connected to.
Officers Report: This application is on the agenda for consideration by the Local Planning Authority because the St Leonards and St Ives Parish Council object to the proposal and 8 letters of objection have been received contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. 8 letters of objection has been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
• The proposals are unsuitable for a special character area
• The proposal will compromise trees, plants and wildlife
• The proposal is unsuitable for a domestic area
• The use of the proposals will result in high levels of noise and disturbance.
This disturbance will particularly affect the neighbours adjacent to the site
• The proposal will be used for team games not as a ‘knock about pitch’
• The heights proposed are above acceptable regulations
• The works are an eyesore
• The application documents are misleading, trees and shrubs have been
removed to make way for the development
• The agent should have disclosed that they were formally the Chief Planning
officer of East Dorset District Council
• The proposal could lead to future light pollution from flood lighting
• The development is within 400m of a SSSI
• The site plan includes Green belt land within the ownership of Avon Castle
Drive residents Company
• The site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
• The retrospective planning application seeks to get around the planning
system
• Covenants regarding the on the property have been ignored
• The Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, article 1 secures the right of peaceful
enjoyment of all their possessions
• Examples of previous applications and studies from other authorities have
been supplied including Devon District council DCC/3167/2010, Somerset,
Sloan Community School 03/0234 R3C, and details of an enforcement notice
against a zip wire in north east Scotland
1 letter of representation has been received in support of the application. Site Description The proposal site contains a two storey detached residential dwelling on a generous plot. The flank boundary of the property abuts Avon Castle Drive. The site is generally well screened from its surroundings. Within the site is a timber play structure (the subject of consent 3/13/1235/HOU), a zip wire located on the west side of the site and a Multiple Use Games Area (MUGA) to the south. A MUGA is an outdoor fenced area for various types of games, such as football, basketball or tennis. The fencing makes it easier to keep the ball in play. Site History 3/13/1235/HOU - Erect Timber Play Structure (Part Retrospective) – Granted February 2014 Considerations The main considerations are i) the impact of the development on the special character of the area ii) the impact on neighbouring residents A zip wire itself does not necessarily require express planning consent as play equipment and therefore planning permission is not required. However, in this instance it is the metal supports at either end of this zip wire that require formal planning consent due to their height (in excess of 3 metres) in proximity to the boundary. The MUGA however is can be considered to be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and therefore planning permission is not required. The equipment provides a leisure facility that can be enjoyed by the occupiers of the associated dwelling house. The court can be used for a number of sporting activities including basketball, football and tennis. In this instance it is the height of the basketball hoop supports at either end of the court that necessitate the need for express planning consent for this element of the MUGA. Should these be omitted and the means of enclosure reduced to a height of 2 metres the proposal would be permitted development. As such the considerations
for the MUGA are restricted to those associated with the additional height to support the basketball hoops. The MUGA itself does not form part of the considerations. Impact on the Character of the Area Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy indicates that all new development should be compatible with or represent an improvement to its surroundings in respect of layout, design, size, scale, materials, visual impact etc. Furthermore the site is located within the Avon Castle Special Character Area as such the East Dorset District Council Policy Planning Division Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 27 (October 2005) applies. The supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) lists a number of development criteria which need to be addressed in any planning application. The SPG sets out 16 development criteria of which numbers 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are of particular relevance these include 1. New development must reflect the rhythm and spacing of existing dwellings. 2. There should be no sub-division of gardens 4. New development must not adversely affect the character of the street scene, as a result of being sited too close to the road, of inappropriate massing and form, of excessive height, or causing the loss of soft landscape features or other factors contained in these design criteria. 5. The scale, massing and height of proposed development must be generally consistent with neighbouring dwellings. 6. In order to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness, any redevelopment proposal must demonstrate that it has taken cognisance of the scale, form, proportions and materials of the original dwellings. The proposal does not affect the heavy screening of pine woods and the sites front boundary hedge. The proposal will retain the low density development respecting the rhythm and spacing of the surrounding development and will preserve the sites amenity space. The scale and height of the proposals and resulting development will be consistent with the other outbuilding and garden features contained within the grounds of the dwellings of Avon Castle. The most contrasting of the materials are the metal framework of the MUGA and the galvanised supports of the zip wire. However, metalwork posts, railings and in particular tall gates are a feature of the area as they have been incorporated into the boundary treatments and entrances of a number of properties within Avon Castle. As such it would be difficult to defend a reason for refusal on these grounds. The materials used are considered simple and appropriate for this type of use. The proposals will not be readily visible from the public realm. Glimpses of the zip wire supports and the tops of the elevations containing the basketball hoops are available from Avon Castle Drive through gaps in the hedging. However these glimpses are brief and are not considered being of such prominence to be considered materially harmful. The proposal also includes a landscaping scheme that will secure additional screening of the MUGA as the landscaping is established.
As such the proposal is considered to preserve the special character of the area. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenities The Avon Castle Special Character Area Supplementary Planning Guidance advises that new developments must sit comfortably in relation to neighbouring dwellings. Cognisance must also be made to the amenities of neighbouring gardens in respect to potential overlooking and any possible reduction in sunlight. The nearest element of the proposals to a boundary with a neighbouring property is 5.2 metres. Due to this separation from the neighbouring properties the proposals are not considered to result in any material harm to the levels of light, outlook or privacy currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring dwellings. The proposed landscaping scheme seeks to mitigate the visual impact of the proposal when viewed from the neighbouring properties. A number of these landscaping features have been implemented on site already. The planting does provide screening of the sides of the enclosure that fall within permitted development. However, the basketball section of the MUGA is visible from the conservatory and patio area of No. 23 and from the upper floor windows of the neighbouring property No.19. However, due to the separation of the proposals from these areas the impact is not considered to result in any material harm to visual amenities of those properties. Concern has been raised regarding the noise and disturbance that the proposals could result in. It is acknowledged that those enjoying the proposed facilities can be expected to have raised voices. However many permitted uses within a properties amenity area can be expected to create similar noise levels including tennis courts, swimming pools, football and sun terraces. The use of the zip wire within the grounds of this residential property can be expected to be infrequent and as a result any disturbance limited. It is also not excessive in length. The considerations for this application are restricted to the supports for the zip wire and the additional height of the enclosure to facilitate the basketball hoops. The additional height of the enclosure would not be expected to have any greater impact that the MUGA. Noise levels may in fact be reduced as a product of the additional height. The side panels of the MUGA are also formed of rubberised materials that provide sound deadening of the court and any impacts to the enclosure when in play. Similar mitigation would be provided by the higher enclosure. Consideration must be given to any fall-back position. Should the enclosures be reduced to a height of 2 metres all round, the development would be considered to be permitted development. If the works are retained as permitted development then the mitigation such as landscaping could not be secured by condition.
Landscaping and Trees The Avon Castle Special Character Area Supplementary Planning Guidance advises that hard-standings must not dominate the site or adversely affect existing amenity vegetation. It is important that the majority of the site (net of the building/s) remains as amenity space. Existing boundary vegetation must not be adversely affected by new development. Hedging must not be replaced with fences or walls. A landscape plan must accompany any application for redevelopment and sufficient space should be allocated for high quality amenity landscaping. It is important to preserve the soft landscape adjacent to the highway. The proposal is not in conflict with any trees or landscape features that remain on the site or adjacent to it. Drawing SMT-1176C3 does indicate that the zip wire is secured to a Cypress Tree. The zip wire installed on site is not secured to any trees or landscape features on the site. A condition can be imposed that prohibits any part of the zip wire being secured or attached to any trees or landscape features on the site. The original landscaping of the site has been the subject of excavation and alteration. Loss of the sites landscaping is a concern raised by those objecting to the proposal. However, the special character area does not prevent property owners from landscaping their properties. A detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted as part of the supporting documentation. The proposed landscaping is considered appropriate and an enhancement to the current condition of the site. The proposed landscaping will provide some screening of the features within the site and may also provide some mitigation of the noise that may be generated on site. The proposed landscaping can be secured by condition. This will allow the landscaping to become established and retained with any dead or dying features to be replaced. Other Matters Green Belt Although representations have been received that express concern on the proposals impact on the Green Belt. The proposal I not located within an area designated as green belt by the Local planning authority. Land Ownership Representation has been received advising that part of the development is located on land that is not within the ownership of the applicant. No evidence has been provided to support this claim. However, should it be found that any part of the development is located on land that is not within the applicants ownership. The issue of any planning consent would not override the need for the applicant to receive the owner’s consent. Restricted Use Comment has been made by the applicant and concerned neighbours regarding who can be expected to use the equipment proposed. The application does not seek a personal consent. Restricting the use of the equipment to specific individual by a condition to any consent would not be considered appropriate as it would fail the
tests outlined in the guidance ‘Use of Planning Conditions 2014’ . Such a condition would not be seen as reasonable or readily enforceable. The user of the equipment must be regarded as unknown regardless of who currently owns or has access to the property. The consideration must also keep in mind any future owners of the site. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty The site is not located within an area formally designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Conclusion The proposal is not considered to adversely harm the Special Character Area in which it is located. There is no evidence that this proposal will not be to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring properties. For these reason the application is considered to be in accordance with National Planning Policy Guidance, Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy 2014 and the Special Character Area Supplementary Planning Guidance Note (SPG) (no 27 October 2005). The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below. Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):- Conditions/Reasons:- 1 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved plans SMT-1176C1, SMT-1176C2, SMT-1176C3 stamp dated received 9th July 2014 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To secure the proper development of the site
2 The proposals for the landscaping of the site, as shown on the approved
plans (including provision for landscape planting, the retention and protection of existing trees and other site features, walls, fencing and other means of enclosure and any changes in levels) shall be carried out as follows:
a) the approved scheme shall be fully implemented with new planting carried out in the planting season October to March inclusive following or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority;
b) all planting shall be carried out in accordance with British Standards, including regard for plant storage and ground conditions at the time of planting;
c) the scheme shall be properly maintained for a period of 5 years and any plants (including those retained as part of the scheme) which die, are removed or become damaged or diseased within this period shall be
replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and the same species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation; and
d)the whole scheme shall be subsequently retained.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure that the approved landscaping scheme is carried out at the proper times and to ensure the establishment and maintenance of all trees and plants
3 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no part of the zip wire shall be
attached or secured to any trees or landscape features on the site.
Reason: To avoid any undue damage to trees or landscape features on the site
Informatives: 1 In reaching this decision regard has been taken of the National Planning
Policy Framework 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;
o offering a pre-application advice service, and o 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: o the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, o the applicant was provided with pre-application advice,
Item Number 7 Ref:
3/14/0675/HOU
Proposal:
Retain Fence along Front Boundary, Erect Wooden Summerhouse in Front Garden. (Revised proposal - reducing height of fence to 1.4m and providing landscaping)
Site Address:
38 Glenwood Road, West Moors, Ferndown, for Mr Alan Fraser
Site Notice expired: 28 August 2014
Advert Expiry Date: N/A
Nbr-Nfn expired: 26 September 2014
Parish Comments: WMPC object to the joint application, whilst we are
heartened to see the reduction in the height of the fence, we still are extremely concerned about the summerhouse as it is viewed as overdevelopment in a front garden of the Special Character Area.
Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section On the entrance to the site stands a mature Fir tree
which makes a contribution to the setting of the area. The application seeks retrospective approval to erect a new front boundary fence. Having inspected the tree and the fencing I am of the opinion that this element of the application has not affected the trees rooting system and as such is acceptable. The application also seeks approval to erect a summerhouse on the eastern boundary of the front garden. Although no foundation details were submitted having spoken with the applicant the idea is to sit the summerhouse on a series of driven wooden posts effectively resting structure above ground level. If this to be the case it would be acceptable, however rainwater would need to harvested and redirected beneath the structures floor to maintain favourable rooting conditions for the Fir tree No objection subject to condition Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development shall commence on site until a construction method statement and the foundation design for the proposed summerhouse have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The summerhouse shall then be erected as per the approved documents.
Officers Report The application comes to Committee as West Moors Parish Council object to the application. This view is at variance with the Officer recommendation to grant consent. Two letters of representation have been received objecting to the application. The concerns raised relate to the visual impact of the development upon the street scene and overall character of the area. Site Description The property comprises a house set within the Glenwood Road/Moorlands Road Special Character Area. The streetscene boundary treatments are a mixture of hedges, or low timber fences, and rendered walls with greenery behind. A number of trees are situated along the roadside; these are subject to a group TPO (WM/156 - 2007) Planning History Planning Application 3/14/0347/HOU for the retention of the fence at 1.8m in height was refused for the following basis:-
'Frontage hedges within the Glenwood Road Special Character Area tend to be evergreen and often above eye-level in height, sometimes supplemented by low brick walling or low fencing. The removal of planting and erection of a fence along the roadside boundary, notably its height and style, appears visually obtrusive and out of keeping with locality leading to the piecemeal erosion of a key attribute of the Special Character Area. The proposal fails to meet Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy, guidance contained with SPG27 (Special Character Areas), and guidance within the NPPF Section 7 as the development does not recognise the local distinctiveness and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.' Since this time the case officer has met with the applicant on site to negotiate a revised scheme to reduce the height of the fence by 3 slats, to 1.4m in height along its Glenwood Road frontage.. Proposal The applicant has submitted a revised scheme and seeks to retain a timber fence that has been erected to the front boundary either side of the entrance drive to number 38. The fence in situ currently measures 1.8m in height and is finished in hardwood laid horizontally. The fence to the right hand side of the entrance is attached to a low wall, painted white. The application as amended seeks to remove 3 boards from the left hand side of the fence fronting Glenwood Road and one board from the right hand side fence, thereby lowering the overall height of the fence fronting Glenwood Road to 1.4m in height. Fencing running back into the site, adjacent to the entrance driveway is shown to be retained at 1.8m in height. Additionally, it is proposed to erect a wooden summerhouse within the front garden, alongside the sites northern boundary; this will be 4.8m by 2.8m with a pitched roof with a height of 2.5m. Considerations The application site is situated within the West Moors Glenwood Road/Moorlands Road Special Character Area (SCA) where development is assessed against Supplementary Planning Guidance 27 (SPG27) Special Character Areas, to ensure that the distinctive character and sense of place of the area is maintained. The SPG describes Glenwood Road as:- 'A mature, urban area of mostly pre First World War family houses placed in large sylvan plots. Two storey villas, having consistent scale, proportions and detailing, but of varied elevation treatment, face onto established streets. The streets are mostly straight and dominated by mature trees and boundary hedges that conceal, in varying degrees, the properties behind.
The urban street character is softened by the abundance of mature deciduous and coniferous trees, and by hedges. The sense of enclosure is maintained at road junctions too, on account of the proximity of plot boundary hedges sited close to the public highway. Groups and individual specimens of pine occur throughout the area, strengthening visual cohesion and local identity. Frontage hedges tend to be evergreen and often above eye-level in height, sometimes supplemented by low brick walling or low fencing. They help to screen the property behind and importantly, conceal parking and garaging. Driveways often enter discreetly onto the public highway through narrow entrances, maintaining the enclosure and seclusion. Moorside Road is distinguished by its substantially larger garden areas and larger dwellings. A number of Arts and Crafts buildings in the street are of special architectural interest. The curve in the road alignment emphasises the sylvan setting and sense of enclosure.' Within the SPG are a set of Development Criteria for each Special Character Area. The following criteria are relevant to this particular application: 2. The mature street character must be maintained, by preserving existing trees, boundary hedges and fences, gates and walls. 3. Maintain space between buildings, which allow large trees to develop and create attractive gardens that flow from front to back. 4. Maintain privacy and seclusion, by retaining front and flank boundary hedges and walls, mature trees and shrubberies, narrow driveway entrances and limit the area of hard standings. Timber summerhouse: The Parish Council remain concerned that the summerhouse is 'overdevelopment' in the front garden which will harm the Special Character Area (SCA). The addition of a small timber summerhouse in the front garden is unobjectionable in principle and given the screening along the boundary it would be difficult to sustain a reasoned argument that this will cause demonstrable harm to the character of the SCA. Ultimately officers would need to provide evidence that this structure caused actual visual harm; and an argument based purely on the principle of development in front gardens could not be sustained. The location and height of the summerhouse will not cause any harm to amenity to the occupants of adjoining properties. No objection is raised to this element of the scheme which meets Core Strategy Policy HE2 and guidance contained with SPG27 (Special Character Areas). Timber Fence: Frontage hedges along Glenwood Road tend to be evergreen and often above eye-level in height, sometimes supplemented by low brick walling or low fencing. They help to screen the property behind and importantly, conceal parking and garaging.
A previous planning application to retain the fence at its current height of 1.8m was refused on the basis that the height and style of the fence appeared visually obtrusive and out of keeping with locality leading to the piecemeal erosion of the Special Character Area. The applicant has met with officers of the Council and agreed to reduce the height of the fence and make this revised application for consideration. In the meantime the applicant has planted large laurel bushes behind the fence. Whilst the style of the fence with horizontal cedar boarding might be described as contemporary design, this in itself at its revised height is unobjectionable. The revised height of 1.4m allows the laurel hedge behind to now be seen and this helps soften the overall impact of the proposal. The fence has already started to weather to a slivery grey typical of cedar boarding which again helps soften the visual impact in the streetscene. In relation to this reduction the Parish Council 'Kare heartened to see the reduction in the height of the fence.' The revised proposal meets Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy, guidance contained with SPG27 (Special Character Areas) and guidance within the NPPF. In relation to trees the Council's tree officer raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions. Summary:- The proposed summerhouse is well screened, whilst the revised height of the fence reduces the visual impact. The proposal will not demonstrable harm the special character of the area and is in accordance with to Policy HE2 of the Core Strategy, and guidance contained with SPG27 (Special Character Areas) and the NPPF Section 7. Recommendation: GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):- Conditions/Reasons:- 1 The fence hereby permitted shall be removed and all associated materials
resulting from the demolition shall be removed within 6 months of the date of failure to meet the requirements set out below:- Within 3 months of the date of this permission, or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the existing fence shall be altered to reduce the overall height to 1.4m in height.
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: Location Plan Block Plan
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Informatives: 1 In assessing this proposal the local planning authority has had regard to
the guidance contained within the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
2 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 advising applicants/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 was provided with pre-application advice.
Item Number 8 Ref:
3/14/0743/FUL
Proposal:
New 2/3 bedroom detached dwelling on land at the rear of 14 Marlborough Place, Wimborne, BH21 1HW as amended by Drwg 1737 - 10G.
Site Address:
14 Marlborough Place, Wimborne, Dorset, for Mr And Mrs Graham Colbourne
Constraints: BIA BIA BIA ECON2 GRNDW HEATH NATS URBANA
Site Notice expired: 26 September 2014
Advert Expiry Date: N/A
Nbr-Nfn expired: 9 September 2014
Parish Comments: No objection per se, but this is a complex issue and
its viability should be resolved at a full EDDC Planning Cttee meeting.
Consultee Responses: EDDC Tree Section These comments are brought forward from the
previous application as they are directly relevant: Located at the northern most point of the application site is a mature Ash, which by virtue of its size is a prominent specimen that makes a positive contribution to the visual amenities of the locality. However, it is evident that this tree has historically been reduced at two different heights and as a result
of this it has impaired form. In addition to this, an old wound on a significant primary limb overhanging the adjacent road has a wound that displays evidence of staining. Upon further investigation remnants of the decay fungus known as Velvet fungus (Inonotus hispidus) was found at its base. Given the nature of decay caused by this pathogen it is not a specimen that is suitable to become the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. This Ash cannot therefore be considered as a material constraint within this proposal. The only other tree of any significance is a Sweet Chestnut that is located on the site's eastern border and in the rear garden of 14 Marlborough Close. However, whilst this tree contributes to the area's verdant character by virtue of its size and raised location, it is also not to be considered as a material constraint within this proposal. It was originally a twin-stemmed tree but one of the co-dominant stems has previously been removed due to extensive decay at its base. This has left a pre-dominantly one-sided tree that has lost its companion shelter. Given the proximity of the decay in the stem previously removed to the remaining stem it is also foreseeable that the remaining stem is / or will become infected. Dieback is already present at the tips of its branches in its upper crown which is often an indicator that its rooting environment has been damaged or become infected. Again, this Sweet Chestnut cannot therefore be considered as a material constraint within this proposal. However, I am concerned as the Sweet Chestnut is located in the neighbouring property and should the owners decide to retain this tree and planning permission be granted to erect the dwelling it would have a significant adverse impact on the tree's safe future retention. I am of the view that the damage that would be caused to its rooting environment as a result of the building being constructed could potentially leave it unstable. Therefore, should planning permission be granted, I strongly advise that the applicant obtains independent arboricultural advice in order to identify and implement means of construction that minimises harm to this tree and this should be done in discussion with the owner of the land on which the tree is growing.
County Highways Development Liaison Officer
The County Highway Authority has no objection in principle subject to an acceptable amended plan being submitted showing the following revisions upon receipt of which final observations will be provided: A proposed 'Ha-ha' wall is shown too close to the highway which is unacceptable. The minimum extent of the highway beyond the front face of the adjacent kerb is usually 500mm so as to include the carriageway construction beneath. This strip should be made as macadam safety margin. This 500mm width strip should also be extended across the new drive access as macadam vehicle crossing with pre-cast concrete edgings to the rear as demarcation. Provision shall also be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway. Further comments following revised drawings: The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition(s): The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the parking indicated on the submitted details has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified. Reason: In the interests of road safety. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until provision has been made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway. Reason: In the interests of road safety. I refer to the amended plan 1737-10G received on 16/9/14. The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition(s): The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the parking indicated on the submitted details has been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
Reason: In the interests of road safety. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until provision has been made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Informative: The applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent, Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any works on the public highway, Dorset County Council's Dorset Highways should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
Officers Report: This application comes before Planning Committee at the request of Wimborne Town Council due to the complexity of the site and its viability. There have also been three letters of representation received from neighbouring properties, which raise the following concerns:
• Damage to the bank/bank will move.
• Ash tree should be retained.
• Will sever roots of Chestnut tree at the top of the bank.
• Site needs softening by planting.
• Site is cramped.
• No objection from Highways Liaison following modification of the hard landscaping.
Site Description 14 Marlborough Place is a detached single storey dwelling that is accessed along with numbers 16 and18 by a private access off the end of a cul-de-sac that in turn comes off Marlborough Place. Vehicular access is via the private access. It has an elongated overgrown northerly amenity area that abuts the curved eastern side of Badbury View. This boundary with Badbury View is marked by an overgrown Leylandii hedge that is over 3 metres high. The wedge shaped application area fronts this part of Badbury View and rises steeply to the east until it meets the rear boundaries of numbers 8 to 12 Marlborough Place. The site is within the urban area. No other designations apply. The boundary for Area Tree Preservation Order WIM/1 runs along the rear boundary of numbers 8 to 10 Marlborough Place and therefore covers a Chestnut on the boundary between the application site and 10 Marlborough Place. There is a large Ash at the northernmost end of the site. No other trees on the site are a constraint.
Proposal This full application is to erect a detached dwelling in the front amenity area of No. 14 Marlborough Place. It is essentially teardrop in planform with a flowing sinuous copper seamed roof that reduces from two storey at the south to single storey at the narrower northern end. The elevation facing Badbury View is curved and maintains a distance of 3.5 metres from the kerb. The rear (eastern) elevation is cut into the bank abutting the rear boundary of the Marlborough Place properties. The submitted drawings show an off road parking area on the northern end of the site. The Access and Design Statement says the existing hedge will be removed and replaced with a post and rail fence and planting on the frontage with Badbury View. This Council's former Senior Arboricultural Officer has appraised the Ash on the site and the Chestnut on the platform above the slope and considers these trees to be in poor condition and not a constraint on development (See comments above) The dwelling has a kitchen /dining area and lounge on the ground floor plus one bedroom with two bedrooms with en-suites on the first floor. The curving nature of the building allows for a striking two storey window at its southernmost point which directs the view away from the host dwelling. The lounge has a large panoramic window with an aspect towards the fall of Badbury View. The drawings indicate a finished floor level of 48.50 metres (Above Ordnance Datum), while the proposed 1.8m close boarded southern boundary fence will run across land that varies in height from 48.55 metres down to 48.25 metres. The ground floor bedroom has a window facing north-west and the highway at Badbury View. On the first floor the southernmost bedroom shares the full height window with the ground floor kitchen/dining area which allows views to the north west over the fall of Badbury View and the front garden of 4a Badbury View. There is a further south western secondary window. The north western bedroom has a curved north western window in the same position as the lounge below, again facing down Badbury View. Each bedroom has an en-suite lit by a light tube. From the rear gardens of the dwellings in Marlborough Place the curved roof will rise to a highest point 3m above the natural. There are no windows in this elevation. This reapplication also includes a low wall (referred to as a ‘ha ha’ on the drawing) separating the amenity area from a planting area on the westernmost corner which will allow for softening planting. Site History A previous application for a chalet style dwelling (13/0583) was withdrawn by the Agent following advice that it was likely to receive a recommendation for refusal. Policies Policy HE2 of the Core Strategy states that development will be permitted if it is compatible with or improves its surroundings in terms of: Layout, site coverage, architectural style, scale, bulk, height, materials, landscaping, visual impact or relationship to nearby properties or trees. Policy LN1 requires that new housing shall be built to minimum living space standards. However, a more flexible approach shall be taken with current undetermined applications or where there has been previous
detailed negotiation. For this reason this application has not been appraised against this policy. Central Government guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) In Section 7 - 'Requiring Good Design' - Para 59 states: 'Local planning authorities should consider design codes. . . . However, design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription of detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height , landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area generally.' Para. 60 states: 'Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. . . ' Planning Considerations The previous withdrawn application was considered unacceptable as it took little regard to the form and contours of the site and appeared to impose its form on a narrow site. While the single storey dwellings downslope to the west of the site are predominantly single storey, the dwellings on the eastern side of Badbury View are more eclectic in form. No 4a is a split level dwelling with a single storey abutting No. 14 and two storeys with integral garage on the far side. No. 6 is a large chalet style dwelling with prominent triangular dormers on the frontage. No. 8 is single storey with a projecting front wing and a relatively high platform above the highway. The principal considerations appear to be the effect upon the adjoining occupiers, the effect upon the streetscape and the surrounding area and upon any tree cover. The flowing planform and elevations allows a form of glazing which will minimise the effect upon the surrounding occupiers. The southern ground and first floor glazing directs the occupiers gaze away from the parent dwelling at 14 Marlborough Place and its neighbour at 4a Badbury View as described above. Any views from these windows towards 3 Badbury View on the far side of the highway will be sufficiently oblique not to allow views into the front rooms of that dwelling while the ground floor bedroom window will be more than 17 metres from the front elevation of No. 3 and across Badbury View, where the public can currently pass and repass. The building will be closer to the highway at 3.5 metres than the surrounding development. This distance has the potential to create an impression of over prominence. It is considered, however that this is mitigated by the fluid form of the building and the manner in which the front elevation follows the line of the highway, which ensures it does not present from any vantage point as a blocky presence. Unlike the previous proposal, this design has clearly been informed by the constraints of the site. When ascending Badbury View from the west the first oblique view will be of the two storey element with its convex glazing followed by the concave dropping curve of the front elevation. This will be softened by the mature planting between the host property and No. 4a. The dwelling will be close to the highway with its rendered
front elevation but this should be appraised in the context of the prominent existing colour washed western gable of No 4a, which is a prominent introduction when entering Badbury View. From the north the proposal will present as essentially single storey with its rising metal roof with a good separation from the nearest dwelling (No. 6) The retaining wall to the hard standing is set well back from the highway and would only be directly glimpsed when passing. This Council’s Architects Panel were supportive but suggested minor changes to the fenestration and the introduction of a freestanding low wall to separate the private amenity space from the more public areas. The wall has been added to the scheme but any deviation from the existing window arrangement would have overlooking implications and therefore this was not followed up. The existing roadside hedge is outgrown and it is unlikely it can be brought back under control by reducing due to the growth pattern of Leylandii hedging. For this reason it would be better to replant with a more controllable boundary planting which will form part of a landscaping condition. The poor quality Chestnut at the top of the bank is outside the application site and may be affected by the proposed works. It is however, not a constraint on this proposal and therefore reverts to a civil matter between the Applicant and the tree's owner. Highways Liaison have raised no objection following receipt of revised drawings that pull the ha ha back from the edge of the carriageway (see Highways comments) The proposal is therefore considered satisfactory In terms of bulk, massing and height, aided by the unique site conditions with the sharply rising ground to the rear which will act as a backdrop. Significant changes in level are one of the defining characteristics of the area (as seen nearby at No. 4a) and this design is considered to be an appropriate response to these constraints. Regarding Paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the design is innovative and tailored to the site. Any impression of bulk is reduced by the manner in which the building will present to the onlooker when travelling up and down Badbury View whereby the building will not appear in its entirety but will be seen emerging from its surroundings. For all of these reasons it is considered the proposal accords with Policy HE2 of the Core Strategy and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, leading to this recommendation. In order to ensure that the original concept is adhered to during construction a condition will be appended requiring any fenestration to be metal framed in order to maintain the 'clean' thin framing shown on the submitted drawings. A satisfactory unilateral agreement agreeing to make a financial contribution to heathland mitigation and transport infrastructure has been received, lifting the reason for the withdrawal of the previous application. 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: 1737-10G and 11E.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 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(s) is satisfactory.
4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment no further windows or doors shall be above ground floor ceiling joist level of the building hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore, any window framing shall be in metal and set back in 100mm reveals unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining occupiers and to preserve the design concept of this dwelling.
5 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the landscaping of
the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, if any, thereon, together with any means of enclosure proposed or existing within or along the curtilage of the site 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
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 application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.
3. IMPLICATIONS
Corporate Plan & Council Objectives
3.1. To ensure East Dorset’s natural and built environment is well managed.
Legal
3.2. 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.
Environmental
3.3. Any issues are contained within the body of this report.
Financial and Risk
3.4. 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.
Equalities
3.5. 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
Background Papers: Planning application files relating to the above applications.
