PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 December 2014

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of Report: To consider the planning applications contained within the

schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or requested deferred applications, if any.

Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that:

The applications contained in this Schedule be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Development Manager’s recommendation.

Lead Member: Cllr M Dyer

Wards: Council-wide

Contact Officer: Giles Moir, Development Management Manager

2. APPLICATION SCHEDULE

No. Application No. Site Address Pg.

1. 3/13/0513/FUL Land Adjacent Oak Tree Cottage, Howe Lane, Verwood

16

2. 3/13/0674/OUT Land to South of Howe Lane, Verwood 35

3. 3/14/0927/HOU 6 Newlands Way, Broadstone 70

4. 3/14/0782/HOU 107 Station Road, West Moors, Ferndown 75

Item Number 1 Ref:

3/13/0513/FUL

Proposal:

Construction of 3 No. chalet bungalows and access road as amended by plans and additional information received 5th August 2013 & 25th November 2013.

Site Address:

Land Adjacent Oak Tree Cottage , Howe Lane, Verwood, for Spencer Homes

Site Notice expired: 21 July 2013

Advert Expiry Date: N/A

Nbr-Nfn expired: 20 August 2013

Background This application submitted in Ful was deferred by Members at Committee on the 10th December 2013 in order to determine the scheme as a comprehensive development, alongside application 3/13/0674/OUT. Members wished to consider the impact of the proposal together with the additional 26 properties proposed as part of that Outline application for 29 dwellings. The Outline application appears as the preceding item on this Committee Agenda with a recommendation for approval. The application for 3 Chalet bungalows is now presented for a second time for consideration. The report as previously presented to the Committee on 10th December is reproduced below with updates to incorporate changes to the policy context and consultation responses received subsequent to the December Committee. Consultee Responses:

Verwood Town Council Objection Highway concerns, access not acceptable. Contrary to Policy DES8 (ix) & (xi)

EDDC Policy Planning The application will be determined in accordance with Policy HODEV5 of the East Dorset Local Plan in advance of the adoption of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy, and the Affordable Housing and Special Needs Housing and the Provision of Small Dwellings SPD dated December 2005. As Tim Davis has set out in his response, the Design and Access statement makes it clear that the current application is part of a larger development proposal by the same developer which in total will result in over 15 dwellings being constructed on the two sites. In light of this information the application should be determined in accordance with paragraph 3.20 of the SPD which states: The size of the site relates to the potential

development site, not the application site i.e. an urban application for 14 dwellings on half of a development site with potential for 28 dwellings would still be required to provide affordable housing. This principle is not affected by parts of a development site being in different ownerships... Therefore the scheme should be determined as a comprehensive development which will need to provide affordable housing in accordance with Tim Davis' recommendations. This approach was successfully argued at appeal for a proposal in the High Street, Sturminster Marshall

County Highways Development Liaison Officer

Comments dated 27.11.13: I refer to the amended plan(s) 8238/100G and 8238/105B received on 26/11/13. Through previous comments and a recent meeting the applicant will be aware that the proposed internal access road is not suitable for adoption. Whilst obviously it would not be adopted for only the two units (for this application); it is also due to construction and maintenance problems associated with the trees. For this application for three units, only vehicle crossings will be permitted across the Howe Lane footway as shown. The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to conditions and Informatives.

Further comments received 14.10.2014:

Further to my comments of the 27/11/13 and following

subsequent consultation for the related planning

application 3/13/0674 I ask that the following

informative be included with any planning consent.

Informative: Adequate provision shall be made to

ensure the safe guarding of land immediately adjacent

to the access road by unit 1 to ensure the footway

proposed in planning application 3/13/0674 can be

provided.

Informative: Adequate provision shall be made to

ensure the safe guarding of a crescent shaped piece

of land immediately on the inside of the access road

around unit 2 to ensure sufficient forward visibility can

be provided in accordance with Manual for Streets if

the access road is to be subsequently extended.

EDDC Design And Conservation Received 28/11/13

Oak Tree Cottage is a modest 18th Century cob cottage which has been altered with more recent 20th Century extensions. The Chalet bungalow next door in Howe lane was built relatively close to the cottage, and this together with the severance of the paddocks adjoining the site, and the loss of outbuildings has led to a change in the setting of the Listed building. I do not consider the proposed new detached dwellings will dominate or damage the setting of the Listed Building any further. Details of materials to be agreed by condition. No objection.

Housing Development Officer

I write to comment on the above Planning Application in my capacity as the Council's Housing Development and Enabling Manager. Supporting both Planning Policy and Development Management colleagues, my role seeks to optimize the provision of affordable housing in line with adopted policy, and to ensure that proposals are deliverable and that identified housing needs are met. My remit is primarily aimed at affordable housing, although the Council is increasingly concerned that new residential developments include 'appropriate' forms of open market housing, i.e. types and tenures that address local needs and demands, and contribute towards a balanced housing market. Although this Planning Application is for 3No. Chalet Bungalows and an Access Road, the Design and Access Statement (paragraph 3.1) confirms that "the site forms a component part of a larger siteF.which will shortly be the subject of an outline planning application for a comprehensive development comprising 29 homes". Later in the Design and Access statement (paragraph 6.9) further reference is made to the wider context and that "the larger development has been devised in discussion with the Council to make a proportionate contribution to the delivery of affordable homes". My prior input is summarized as follows:- Earlier in the year I can confirm that I was approached by John Newman, an Affordable Housing Consultant, employed to explore affordable housing principles that

might be acceptable to the Council, should an application come forward. Subject to planning, and respecting the pre-application status of the enquiry, I was asked to comment upon a mix of affordable housing should it come forward within such a development. I also took the opportunity to clarify a number of fundamental affordable housing principles and requirements, should an application be made. Carefully reserving the Council's position and speaking as the affordable housing enabling manager, the following points were made:-

• If an application came forward for anything less

than 40% affordable housing (even by 1%)

then it would be a matter for Committee to

approve

• If an application came forward for 40%

affordable housing, then the council would

generally seek 70% affordable or social rent

(with assured or fixed term tenancies) and 30%

intermediate affordable housing (although

some flexibility might be exercised in the

current climate)

• The Council would require ALL affordable

housing units to meet prevailing HCA design

and build standards, including Housing Quality

Indicators and Code for Sustainable Homes.

And the Council would expect the housing to be

provided by an Approved Provider.

• That the Council would require 'tenure blind'

design and would wish to see the affordable

housing units integrated within the private

housing in clusters, if the ability to do so is not

compromised by other planning interests.

The Agent also supplied a schedule of 28 market and affordable homes, including a range of proposed sizes and tenures for the latter. The mix, incorporating both flats and houses for rent and shared-ownership, was deemed to be acceptable, albeit 'in principle'. As previously stated, my guidance was carefully qualified including the caveat that "all of the above comments are made as the Council's Housing Development and Enabling Manager, and the position of Planning colleagues has to be reserved. My role is to make recommendations to these colleagues, but there may be other factors that need to be taken into consideration before they reach a final view".

Conclusion. As stated at the outset, my involvement has not been explicitly connected to the current application, but to the all-encompassing development proposals for the entire site. Given the nature of the current situation, i.e. combining a current full planning application, with the promise of a further outline application, I envisage that the current issues will need to be addressed with input from Planning Policy colleagues.

EDDC Tree Section Received 29/08/2014

There are three Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) that protect trees on the sites for the Full and Outline applications. Howe Lane No. 3 Verwood protects the group of 5 Oak trees beside Oak Tree Cottage and the row of 5 Oaks across the centre of the site. Howe Lane No. 2 Verwood protects the Oaks immediately behind Mandalay Close. Summerfields Verwood No. 1 protects 2 Oak trees in the south west corner of the site. The relationship of the proposed dwellings (Plots 1,2 and 3) to the Oak trees should not prejudice their long term retention. The five Oaks beside Oak Tree Cottage are an especially important group which are highly visible in the street scene and whose loss would be detrimental to the amenity of the area. There may be some slight shading issues in the summer when the trees are in full leaf. However the gardens are large and the Oaks, being deciduous, will not cause shade in the winter months even though the trees are to the south of the dwellings. This application includes the provision of a specially engineered access road through a group of Oaks protected by Howe Lane No. 3 TPO to service the 28 dwellings to the rear of the site. This is technically feasible and is not in itself a reason for refusal although its construction will need careful supervision. There is some technical detail that will need to be the subject of a planning condition for foundations, hard surfacing and special engineering and which can be addressed through a detailed Arboricultural Method

Statement, a site monitoring schedule and a schedule of tree works. I have seen the comments made by the Tree Officer reported at the Planning Committee in December 2013 who broadly came to the same conclusions.

Natural England Issues concerning designated heathland sites The application site lies in the vicinity (within 5km and beyond 400m) of heathlands that are notified as SSSIs for the special interest of their heathland habitats and associated plant and animal species. The SSSIs are part of the Dorset Heathlands SPA on account of rare or vulnerable heathland bird species and are also part of a Ramsar site on account of rare or vulnerable heathland wetlands and associated rare wetland species. They are additionally part of the Dorset Heaths SAC on account of rare or vulnerable heathland and associated habitats and some individual species. The proximity of the European sites (SPA and SAC) raises considerations on the requirements of the Habitats Directive 1992 for these sites to be maintained or, where necessary, restored at a favourable conservation status (Article 3(1)). Determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat and Species Regulations 2010. In particular Regulations 61 and 62; and legislative and policy considerations on the protection, conservation and enhancement of the interest features of the SSSI and Ramsar site. There is considerable documented information showing that urban development in the area around lowland heathland has an adverse effect on the quality of heathland interest features underlying the designation of the European sites, Ramsar site and SSSIs. Key references can be found at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/southwest/ourwork/heathlands/default.aspx In our view the proposal is not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of the European sites. Owing to the proximity of the proposal to the European sites, Natural England is of the opinion that the additional residential development, in combination with other dwellings proposed near to the European sites, would be likely to have a significant effect on the heathland interest features of these sites in the context of Regulation 61. Before granting planning permission, the competent authority should undertake

an appropriate assessment of the implications of the development on the European sites in light of the conservation objectives. The conservation objectives are to maintain and, where not in favourable condition, to restore the heathland and other habitat and species interest features. Whilst on its own the development may not adversely affect the integrity of the European sites, the development without mitigation would be likely to contribute to a deterioration of the quality of lowland heathland and its interest features. Natural England notes the applicant's commitment to make an appropriate developer contribution towards the Dorset Heathlands Supplementary Planning Document as a means to addressing an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. The appellant will need to contribute towards this through a unilateral undertaking. It would be possible to mitigate the effects through the types of measures set out in the Dorset Heathlands SPD. The measures will be subject to monitoring and evaluation, and modification where necessary to ensure that, as a whole, they deliver effective mitigation across the European sites. On this basis Natural England considers that implementation of the Framework can allow the Competent Authorities in South East Dorset to conclude no adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites from the envisaged amount of housing development in the area between 400m and 5km from these sites in the period to the end of 2014. Natural England OBJECTS to this application proposal unless the applicant contributes to the mitigation set out in the SPD in accordance with the levels and procedures for this contribution. This advice on mitigation also applies in meeting legislative and policy considerations on the protection, conservation and enhancement of the heathland SSSIs and Ramsar site. Issues concerning other designated sites: SSSI No Objection - no conditions requested This application is in close proximity to Moors River System SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as

submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. Protected Species We note that a number of trees on site have been identified as having potential for roosting bats. The application indicates that these features will be retained. Should the removal of or other works to these features on site become necessary, then the applicant should be aware that further surveys should be undertaken in order to ensure compliance with the law.

Representations: 38 letters of representation have been received from 19 properties in vicinity of the site. One representation expresses support for the provision of 3 bungalows and the other representations object for the following reasons:

• Impact on rural outlook

• Inappropriate to access outline site from Howe Lane (should be from

Summerfields)

• Access inadequate for service and emergency vehicles and access would

not be adoptable

• Proposal will facilitate access to larger outline scheme (further 26 units)

• Too close to school - highway safety concerns/double parking

• Impact on Moors River system SSSI, Heathland, Ancient woodland at

Heathy Howe, and preserved oak trees on and adjacent site

• Impact on ecology/protected species including bats, owls and badgers

• Provision needs to be made for affordable housing

• Proposal would use Council land acquired for road improvement/sight

splays

• Need to make provision for cycle route to school

• Inaccuracies in submission and on plans re boundaries and trees

• Scale (especially height) and design of new buildings

• Impact on Listed Building (Oak Tree Cottage)

• Impact on views of listed building - thatched properties would be more

appropriate

• Loss of privacy to adjacent properties and dwellings on opposite side of

Howe Lane

• Physical relationship to and loss of light to properties in Mandalay Close

• Impact on trees

• Loss of trees on site at rear (outline site)

• Site no longer proposed in Core Strategy

• Disturbance (noise and pollution) during construction, noise and activity

following completion

• Infrastructure of Verwood is inadequate to accommodate development and

inappropriate to approve new development until unmade access roads to

Howe Lane have been upgraded

• Impact of hardstanding/services on trees

• Impact on drainage and flooding in vicinity of the site, inadequate details of

sustainable drainage

• Inadequate parking provision

• Light pollution on environment and impact on neighbouring properties from

car headlights using access

• Impact of proposed tree planting on light/amenity of properties in

Mandalay Close

• Proposal would prevent subsequent expansion of Verwood school campus

• Inadequate details of street lighting and drainage provision (inc. sewerage)

Officers Report This application is brought to Committee for determination because the officer's recommendation is for approval, Verwood Town Council has raised an objection to the application and there are more than 5 letters of objection. Site description The application site comprises a 0.32ha approx. plot of land with a 34m long frontage on the south side of Howe Lane between Oak Tree Cottage (which is a Grade II listed building) and a detached bungalow known as Mandalay. The area is characterised by single and two storey detached dwellings of varying designs which are generally aligned parallel to the road on plots at a right angle to the road. The site extends to the east behind Oak Tree Cottage and shares a boundary with no.53 which is a two storey detached dwelling. There is a small cul de sac of bungalows to the west of the site and the applicant owns a large paddock to the south which drops down approximately 2m in height to a mixed woodland in the river valley to the south of the site. This paddock shares a western boundary (marked by a drainage ditch) with the school grounds. There are a number of mature trees which are the subject of a tree preservation order in the middle of the application site and along boundaries of the paddock.

The proposal The application seeks to erect three 4 bedroomed detached chalet bungalows with integral garages and forecourt parking provision for two cars in front of each of the garages. The dwellings would each have a footprint of approx. 150m2. The dwelling on Plot 1 is located at the front of the site approximately 2.5m away from Mandalay. At its closest point the new building on plot 1 would be 4m from the edge of the highway. The dwelling on plot 3 would be approximately 38m further back on the site aligned approx. 6m away from No.2 Mandalay Close, and approx. 3m from the dwelling on plot 2. This latter dwelling would be set approx. 20m behind Oak Tree Cottage and approx. 18.6m away from no.53 Howe Lane. Amended plans have been received which show that the proposed vehicular access is to be truncated in front of the house on plot 2. The dwellings on plots 2 and 3 are of similar design to each other with a forward projecting two storey gable and a ridge length of approx. 6.8m. The dwellings would have a ridge height of 7m and eaves height of 2.5m, and the first floor accommodation is served by a hipped roof dormer in the front and three dormers on the rear elevations. The building on Plot 1 would have a smaller ridge line at a height of 6.8m and an eaves height of 2.5m. The pyramidal roof form results in a smaller roof mass than the other two dwellings. History The application site is included within an application for Outline Consent to construct residential development of 29 homes comprising 15 x 4 bedroom houses, 7 x 3 bedroom houses, 2 x 2 bedroom houses, 2 x 2 bedroom flats and 3 x 1 bedroom flats with access from Howe Lane (13/0674/OUT) which is also on this agenda for consideration by the Planning Committee. Policy Context The National Planning Policy Framework states that the Planning System should contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development (paras 6,7 and 19) but Local Planning Authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area (para 53). The importance of good design is emphasised (para 56) and the Framework states that decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive, will function well and add to the overall quality of the area by responding to local character and reflecting the identity of local surroundings (para 58). Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (para 64).

East Dorset Local Plan 2002 (EDLP) The site is within the defined urban area of Verwood. The December Committee report advised that Policies HODEV1, HODEV2, HODEV5, RCDEV2, RCDEV3, TEDEV3, DES2,5,7,8,9,10 and11, NCON5, OBLIG1, TRANS2,10,13 and14 of the EDLP apply to the consideration of this application. The previous Committee report also stated that the Local Plan policies require careful consideration of the proposal's relationship to and impact upon the character of the area, nature conservation interests and trees, amenities of adjacent properties and highway safety. Since the December Committee, the policies in the EDLP have largely been superseded by the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy (Part 1). Christchurch and East Dorset's joint Core Strategy (Part 1) 2014: Christchurch and East Dorset's joint Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State in March 2013. An Examination in Public was held at the end of last year and the Inspector concluded that the Core Strategy is Sound. Both Councils adopted the Core Strategy in April 2014. The Core Strategy saves Local Plan policies HODEV2, TEDEV3 and DES2. Core Strategy Policy KS1 sets the presumption in favour of sustainable development and Policy KS2 requires the location, scale and distribution of development to conform with the settlement hierarchy. This policy recognises Verwood as one of the main settlements which will provide the major focus for residential development including infill development as well as options for some greenfield development. Policy KS4 sets out the housing requirement for the plan period and policies KS11 and KS12 set out the Parking and Transportation requirements for new development. Policy HE1 states that heritage assets will be conserved and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and importance locally to the wider social, cultural and economic environment. Policy HE2 sets out the requirements that seek to ensure that proposals are compatible with their surroundings and will harmonise with the townscape and general character of the areas in which they are set. Policy HE3 states that development will need to protect and seek to enhance the landscape character of the area. Policy HE4 applies to the provision of Open Space within the site Policy LN1 requires all new housing to be built to meet minimum living space standards for both internal and external areas. Policy LN2 sets the parameters for dealing with the design, layout and density of new housing development. The Policy states that a minimum density of net 30dph will be

encouraged, unless this would conflict with the local character and distinctiveness of an area where a lower density is more appropriate. Policy LN3 sets the parameters for the consideration of affordable housing requirements and stipulates that all Greenfield development is to provide up to 50% of the residential units as affordable housing. Policy ME1 safeguards biodiversity and geodiversity Policy ME2 provides protection to the Dorset Heathlands and seeks mitigation for any impact in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD. Policies ME3 - ME5 deal with sustainable development and renewable energy provision for new development Policy ME6 stipulates the requirements for dealing with applications affected by flooding Policy ME7 stipulates the requirements for protecting groundwater. Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing and Affordable Housing SPD adopted April 2014 Dorset Heathland Planning Framework SPD South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2 SPD Core Strategy Impact on character of area: The character of the area comprises a mixture of single and two storey detached dwellings of varied form and style. Immediately adjacent is a listed cottage with a thatched roof, and a cul de sac of detached bungalow which extend the depth of development beyond the linear alignment evident along a significant part of Howe Lane. The proposed buildings would be one and a half storeys in height and would have the characteristics of large detached dwellings set upon large plots marked by mature trees. The proposed dwellings would be at least 20m away from the listed building and separated from Oak Tree cottage by the access road and landscaping. The boundaries of Oak Tree Cottage are to be reinforced by planting and combined with the substantial canopy coverage provided by preserved trees on the application site the separation distances are considered sufficient to preserve the immediate setting of the listed building. However, a condition is recommended to ensure that the detailing and materials of the proposed dwellings are adequately considered. The two dwellings on the rear of the site would not be visually prominent in the streetscene. Although the new dwelling at the front of the site would be close to Howe Lane its front elevation would align generally with that of Mandalay.

Given this relative alignment to Mandalay the new dwelling on plot 1 would not be visually prominent in the streetscene from the north-west. When viewed from the southeast the significance of the projection closer to Howe Lane is mitigated by the open space and access between plot 1 and Oak Tree Cottage. Whilst redevelopment of the site will clearly alter its character from the grazing paddock, the site is within the urban area and given the above relationships and the retention of the significant trees on site it is concluded that the proposal would not be significantly harmful to the character of the streetscene. Amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings: The properties in Mandalay Close are single storey and their common boundaries with the application site are marked by close boarded fencing. Although the new dwelling on plot 1 would be less than 3m away from Mandalay it is aligned parallel to that property and would not project beyond the rear or front elevations of Mandalay. The roof height and hipped design of the new dwelling has been configured to minimise the impact on Mandalay and the windows in the facing elevation of Mandalay are secondary windows or serve bathrooms. The element that projects closest to the rear boundary has a hipped roof and the proposed building would not therefore have an overbearing relationship or result in any significant harm to the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties in Mandalay Close. Whilst the front dormer of the dwelling on plot 3 and the rear dormer of the dwelling at plot 1 would enable some overlooking to the rear of no.1 Mandalay these windows would provide oblique views at a distance of approximately 12-13m which would be partially mitigated by the canopies of the preserved trees and by the existing garages of the Mandalay properties. The dwelling on plot 3 would be approximately 5.5m away from the rear elevation of no.2 Mandalay Close, but that property's main garden falls to the south, and the dwelling on plot 3 has been designed to include a garage with a hipped roof close to the boundary with no.2. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would not significantly impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of no.2 Mandalay Close. The configuration of the properties and their separation distance from Oak Tree Cottage and no.53 Howe Lane is considered sufficient to ensure that there would not be any significant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of those properties. Notwithstanding the physical proximity to the properties in Mandalay Close given the orientation and disposition of the new dwellings relative to the bungalows in Mandalay Close it is not considered that the proposal would significantly impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the dwellings in the Close The car parking is a sufficient distance away from the adjacent properties not to result in any significant disturbance and the disposition of windows and boundary fencing is considered adequate to ensure that the proposal would not result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to adjacent properties.

Parking and Highway safety One of the three new dwellings would be accessed directly from Howe Lane and the other two would share a new vehicular access which provides a turning area in front of plot 3 and is truncated to the south of Oak Tree Cottage in the space between plot 2 and no.53 Howe Lane. It is common practice to have up to 5 dwellings served off a private driveway and such arrangement is not untypical of sites proposing development of this nature. The proposal provides adequate parking and sight splays and subject to conditions the County Highways officer does not raise any objection to the proposal. The County Highways officer has, however, concluded that because of the design and construction of the access (with a bridging design around the trees) it is not adoptable. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the proposed access would serve two dwellings and it makes appropriate provision for the access and parking requirements of the development. The fact that the access will not be adopted is not in itself a reason for refusal of the application. Ecological matters and relationship to trees The proposal is accompanied by a biodiversity mitigation plan to secure appropriate mitigation of impact on bats. The proposal allows for the retention of protected trees and subject to appropriate conditions no objection is raised by the arboricultural officer. A number of representations refer to the felling of preserved trees. These trees were adjacent to the boundary of the Outline site with no.4 Summer Fields and they are beyond the application site for 3 dwellings - their felling has no impact upon the development subject of the current application. Unilateral Agreement The application site is more than 400m from the Internationally Protected Dorset Heathlands. In accordance with advice from Natural England, the proposal would be acceptable subject to a contribution to mitigate the impact on the heathland in compliance with the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework. The proposal for three x 4 bedroom dwellings would result in an increased vehicular trip rate to and from the site. The South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2 provides for developer contributions towards transport schemes identified as necessary to accommodate and mitigate the transportation impact of expected levels of development up to 2014. A Unilateral agreement has been submitted and this would secure contributions towards the mitigation of impact upon the Dorset Heathlands and transport infrastructure.

Although the proposal falls below the threshold for the provision of affordable housing set out in HODEV5 of the EDLP (0.5ha or 15 or more dwelling), the application site comprises part of a larger site which is proposed for development in an outline application by the same applicant/owner. Piecemeal development of such larger sites could result in the LPA not securing affordable housing in accordance with its adopted policies and Affordable Housing SPD. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the affordable housing implications of granting consent for the partial development of a larger site are addressed and the applicant has sought to do this by submitting a Legal Agreement with the Outline planning application to secure a proportion of affordable housing relating to the overall number of housing units proposed on the current application site and on the Outline application site. An informative is therefore recommended to indicate that the proposal constitutes a piecemeal development of a larger potential development site and any subsequent calculation of affordable housing requirement on the larger site will need to reflect the total number of units to be provided on the total site area. Similarly, as part of a larger developable site, the proposal gives rise to the need to consider the provision of open space in accordance with the requirements of the Local Plan. An Informative is therefore recommended to indicate that the proposal constitutes piecemeal development of a larger potential development site and any subsequent calculation of open space provision on the larger site will need to reflect the total number of units/site area. Conclusion The new buildings, access and parking layout associated with the proposed development would not be materially detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and the proposal would not significantly impact upon protected trees or the amenities of adjacent properties. The proposal therefore accords with the requirements of Local Plan policies HODEV2 and DES8, and paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out below. 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:

8238/100G Site, Block and Location Plan 8238/101B Floor Plans and Elevations Plot 1 8238/102B Floor Plans and Elevations Plot 2 8238/103B Floor Plans and Elevations Plot 3 8238/104B Street Scene and Site Section 8238/105B Visibility Plan 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 Plans and particulars showing the provision to be made for the storage and

disposal of refuse and recycling, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved. Such provision as is agreed shall be implemented concurrently with the development and thereafter retained.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the

proposal. 5 Plans and particulars showing a scheme of foul sewers and surface water

drains, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced before these details have been approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details concurrently with the rest of the development and in any event shall be finished before any of the new dwellings are occupied.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the

proposal in respect of trees and drainage and to avoid flooding. 6 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 constructed in the side and rear elevations (such expression to include the roof and wall) of the buildings hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid loss of privacy to adjoining properties. 7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof no extensions or outbuildings shall be constructed without express planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: In the interests of controlling matters which may be detrimental to the original visual concept and the balance of private space provision, and in order to protect the amenities of adjacent residential properties and in order to ensure an appropriate relationship between built form and trees.

8 Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no

development shall start on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), which is to be in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS and TPP. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be confirmed at a pre-commencement meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

Reason: To prevent trees on/adjacent to the site from being damaged 9 Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no

development shall commence on site until the final construction method statement and specification for the proposed driveway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The driveway shall then be installed as per the approved documents and this condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of its installation.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged 10 Before the development is commenced, proposals for the hard and soft

landscaping of the site, to include provision for the retention and protection of existing trees and shrubs, 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 Local 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., 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.

11 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or utilised until the parking and turning 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.

12 Before any other operations are commenced the visibility splay areas as

shown on Drawing Number 8238/105B shall be cleared to a level not exceeding 0.6 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas shall thereafter be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

13 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

14 Before the development is commenced the proposed access crossing from the

nearside edge of the carriageway to the boundary of the highway shall be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

15 Plans and particulars showing:

• the finished floor levels, related to ordnance datum or fixed point within the site, of the ground floor of the proposed building(s), (and as appropriate the closest adjacent building beyond the site); and

• the finished levels of the access road relative to the levels of the land adjacent to the access road

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.

Informatives: 1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as Local

Planning Authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application, the applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

2 To fight fires effectively the Fire and Rescue Service needs to be able to

manoeuvre its equipment and appliances to suitable positions adjacent to any premises. Therefore, the applicant is advised that they should consult with Building Control and Dorset Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that Fire Safety - Approved Document B Volume 1 Dwelling houses B5 of The Building Regulations 2006 can be fully complied with.

3 With regard to condition 4 consultation is recommended with Dorset Waste

Partnership or those providing waste removal as there may be issues relating to the access constraints imposed by the trees and the private road status and a refuse collection point near the public highway may be required.

4 The proposal constitutes a piecemeal development of a larger potential

development site within the urban area. The applicant has submitted an outline application for 29 houses on the larger site (which includes the site subject of this consent), and any subsequent calculation of the requirements for affordable housing and open space provision on the larger/remaining site will need to reflect the total number of units to be provided on the total site area.

5 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 Highways at Dorset County Council should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at dorsetdirect@dorsetcc.gov.uk, or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

6 A contribution is necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in

planning (transport) terms and will contribute to schemes required to mitigate the transport impacts of this proposal in accordance with the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2. A significant transport modelling exercise was undertaken in 2009 to analyse the potential impact of trips from expected levels of development on the transport networks in south east Dorset. The contribution will be spent on one or more schemes, outlined in the Local Transport Plan 3 or the Local Transport Plan priorities list, designed to mitigate against this impact. These schemes will be geographically or functionally linked to the development making the contribution.

7 Adequate provision shall be made to ensure the safe guarding of land

immediately adjacent to the access road by unit 1 to ensure the footway

proposed in planning application 3/13/0674 can be provided.

8 Adequate provision shall be made to ensure the safe guarding of a crescent

shaped piece of land immediately on the inside of the access road around unit

2 to ensure sufficient forward visibility can be provided in accordance with

Manual for Streets if the access road is to be subsequently extended.

Item Number 2 Ref:

3/13/0674/OUT

Proposal:

Construct residential development of 29 homes comprising 15 x 4 bedroom houses, 7 x 3 bedroom houses, 2 x 2 bedroom houses, 2 x 2 bedroom flats and 3 x 1 bedroom flats with access from Howe Lane - as amended by plans rec 25th and 29th Nov 13 and amended application form rec 14.02.14 and as amended by plans rec'd 8.3.14

Site Address:

Land To The South Of Howe Lane, Verwood

Site Notice expired: 29 September 2013

Advert Expiry Date: 20 September 2013

Nbr-Nfn expired: 10 December 2013

Verwood Town Council

Objections Received 11/09/13 & 06/12/13 Contrary to Core Strategy. Highway concerns regarding access and egress. Parking concerns and concerns about trees. Concern regarding the adoptive standard of the access to all properties

Consultee Responses:

Natural England Issues concerning designated heathland sites The application site lies in the vicinity (within 5 km and beyond 400m) of heathlands that are notified as SSSIs for the special interest of their heathland habitats and associated plant and animal species. The SSSIs are part of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland bird species and are also part of a Ramsar site on account of rare or vulnerable heathland wetlands and associated rare wetland species. They are additionally part of the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland and associated habitats and some individual species. The proximity of the European sites (SPA and SAC) raises considerations on the requirements of the Habitats Directive 1992 for these sites to be maintained or, where necessary, restored at a favourable

conservation status (Article 3 (1)). Determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat and Species Regulations 20101, in particular Regulations 61 and 62; and legislative and policy considerations on the protection, conservation and enhancement of the interest features of the SSSI and Ramsar site. There is considerable documented information showing that urban development in the area around lowland heathland has an adverse effect on the quality of heathland interest features underlying the designation of the European sites, Ramsar site and SSSIs. Key references can be found at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_west/ourwork/heathlands/default.aspx In our view the proposal is not directly connected with, or necessary to, the management of the European sites. Owing to the proximity of the proposal to the European sites, Natural England is of the opinion that the additional residential development, in combination with other dwellings proposed near to the European sites, would be likely to have a significant effect on the heathland interest features of these sites in the context of Regulation 61. Before granting planning permission the competent authority should undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the development on the European sites in light of their conservation objectives. The conservation objectives are to maintain and, where not in favourable condition, to restore, the heathland and other habitat and species interest features. Whilst on its own the development may not adversely affect the integrity of the European sites, in combination with other dwellings proposed near to the European sites, the development without mitigation would be likely to contribute to a deterioration of the quality of lowland heathland and its interest features. Natural England notes the applicant's

commitment to make an appropriate developer contribution towards the Dorset Heathlands Supplementary Planning Document as a means to addressing an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. The appellant will need to contribute towards this through a unilateral undertaking. It would be possible to mitigate the effects through the types of measures set out in the Dorset Heathlands SPD. The measures will be subject to monitoring and evaluation, and modification where necessary to ensure that as a whole they deliver effective mitigation across the European sites. On this basis Natural England considers that implementation of the Framework can allow the Competent Authorities in South East Dorset to conclude no adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites from the envisaged amount of housing development in the area between 400m and 5km from these sites in the period to the end of 20142. Natural England objects to this application proposal unless the applicant contributes to the mitigation set out in the SPD in accordance with the levels and procedures for this contribution. This advice on mitigation also applies in meeting legislative and policy considerations on the protection, conservation and enhancement of the heathland SSSIs and Ramsar site. Issues concerning other designated sites: SSSI No objection - no conditions requested This application is in close proximity to Moors River System SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife

and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. Protected species and biodiversity enhancements Natural England notes the inclusion of a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan for the proposed development, which has been approved by the Natural Environment Team at Dorset County Council. We therefore advise that any approval for the proposed development should include a condition securing the implementation of the recommendations of the aforementioned plan.

Dorset County Council Premises Officer Comments submitted on 13/03/14

Mr Spencer has now submitted a new plan, with the boundary line with DCC's Emmanuel School playing field having moved. I now consider that this is the correct boundary line between the two properties. Please remove the objection previously submitted.

Environment Agency Comments submitted on 08/10/2014

We have no objection 'in principle', however we have the following advice on the content of the Flood Risk Assessment, and recommend a condition, similar to the one detailed below be attached to any permission granted. Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

The FRA states the closest watercourse is the River Crane, but by reference to the Ordnance Survey plan and the illustrative site layout plan there is an 'ordinary' watercourse flowing along the western boundary of the site. Unless we are mistaken no consideration of this watercourse has been made in respect of providing an undeveloped river corridor. It is good practice to provide an easement, typically 4 metres wide for small watercourses, measured from the top of the bank to allow for maintenance access and possible future improvement. Your Authority is the land drainage authority for 'ordinary' watercourses hence we recommend you formally consult your Council Technical Services Department to ensure that the proposal does not affect their flood defence responsibilities, and to seek further guidance on an appropriate watercourse easement at this location. You may choose to include an appropriately worded planning condition to prevent development (including gardens, outhouses, sheds, walls, fences etc.) from encroaching too close to the 'ordinary' watercourse. The FRA confirms disposal of surface water run-off to SUDS, and includes some preliminary details and calculations. However, we note the stated existing greenfield discharge is c. 35 l/s. This figure, for a

small 1.24 hectare site, is very high. There are no supporting calculations to substantiate this figure, hence before designing the final surface water drainage scheme we strongly recommend the greenfield run-off rate be checked. We recommend the methodology detailed in the following guidance be used to check the greenfield run-off rate:- Preliminary rainfall runoff management for developments, R&D Technical Report W5-074/A/TR/1, Revision E, January 2012 http://geoservergisweb2.hrwallingford.co.uk/uksd/sudsguidancedocument.htm CONDITION: 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. NOTE TO LPA We anticipate the LPA will expect to see the following details when discharging the above condition: 1) A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing the pipe networks and any attenuation ponds, swales, soakaways and drainage storage tanks. This plan should show any pipe node numbers referred to in the drainage calculations and the invert and cover levels of manholes. 2) A manhole schedule. 3) Model runs to demonstrate that the critical storm duration is being used. 4) Confirmation of the agreed discharge rate, with any flow control devices indicated on the plan with the rate of discharge stated. 5) Calculations showing the volume of attenuation provided, demonstrating how the system operates during a 1 in 100 critical duration storm event. If overland flooding occurs, a plan should also be submitted detailing the location of overland flow paths and the likely depths of flooding. A 30% allowance for climate change should be incorporated into the scheme in accordance with NPPF. 6) Where infiltration forms part of the proposed stormwater system such as infiltration trenches and soakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to

be submitted in accordance with BRE digest 365. NOTES TO APPLICANT Sustainable Construction Sustainable design and construction should be implemented across the proposed development. This is important in limiting the effects of and adapting to climate change. Running costs for occupants can also be significantly reduced. 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 Should this proposal be granted planning permission, then in accordance with the waste hierarchy, we wish the applicant to consider reduction, reuse and recovery of waste in preference to offsite incineration and disposal to landfill during site construction. 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. .

EDDC Engineers Section Received 15/10/13

Severe drainage problems were encountered on the adjacent site to the east of this development several years ago. The ground conditions for the proposed site are likely to be largely impermeable clay. If this proves to be the case this will restrict or prevent the use of infiltration or soakaway systems. No site survey has been provided although the proposed layout drawing appears to be overlain on the existing site survey (Item 8.3 of the FRA refers to a topographical survey provided in Appendix B). This

Further comments received 17/11/2014

shows a ditch in both the south west and south east corners of the site. The south east ditch appears from the levels to be labelled incorrectly and in practice may be a ridge. The site generally falls to the south west corner. The south west corner ditch may provide a surface water outfall point if the site investigation confirms that the site is impermeable. Further investigation of this ditch and its condition would be required if this is to be considered as an outfall. Preliminary discharge drainage figures are included in the FRA, reference item 9.2. Full drainage calculations are required together with detailed drainage design proposals for this site. The design should be based on a full ground/site investigation which will include a wide spread coverage of permeability tests to ascertain the soakage conditions and to ensure the maximum use of SUDS systems. A system exceedance flood routing check should be undertaken for the proposed site to confirm that properties would not flood internally. A 375mm diameter public foul sewer is shown along the south west and south sides of the site. This may pass under plots 17 to 27 and under the garages of plots 9 to 14. This sewer has a poor gradient and a diversion may be required along this length. This will be for Wessex Water to determine.

The ordinary watercourse mentioned in the EA consultation is the ditch referred to in my comments a year ago. Due to the uncertain nature of the ground conditions for the use of SUDs on this site, the use of this watercourse as a means to drain the site may become essential. The developer should therefore either provide site investigation information to confirm and ensure that it is possible to wholly drain the site with SUD systems or provide details on the adequacy of the watercourse to cater for the additional flows. A full drainage design and details together with a system exceedance flood routing check can be provided under condition. Dorset County Council are the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and not East Dorset District Council and as such hold the consenting powers for watercourses. They should be consulted with regards to the EAs and District Council's comments for this site.

With the information currently available it is not possible to confidently determine whether the site can be adequately drained and you may wish to consider whether granting outline planning consent with drainage conditions is suitable at this moment in time.

Dorset County Council Lead Local Flood Authority Wessex Water Services Ltd Received 02/09/13

Comments to be reported The site will be served by separate systems of drainage constructed to current adoptable standards please see Wessex Water's Advice Note 16 for further guidance. There is sufficient spare capacity in the local sewerage network to accommodate the foul flow only from the proposed development. Point of connection subject to application. Please refer to the attached extract from our records showing the approximate location of our apparatus in the vicinity of the site. There is a 375mm diameter asbestos cement public foul sewer which crosses the site north to south and west to east across the site. This sewer must be accurately located on site and plotted on drawings submitted to Building Regulations. There must be no building within 3 metres of this sewer and no planting within 6 metres. Subject to engineering approval and application it may be possible to divert this sewer to suit the layout, which will be at the developer's cost. The applicant has indicated a SUDs solution for Surface Water Drainage. The local public surface water sewers have limited capacity to accommodate additional flows. Early consultation should be made with Wessex Water if a connection to these sewers is proposed. There is a watercourse to the south west of the site; approval will be required from your Authority if a connection to this watercourse is sought. Sempcorp provide potable water in this area.

County Highways Development Liaison Officer Received on 14/10/2014

I refer to the amended plan(s) 8238 / Nos. 200c; 201c & 224b published by EDDC on 18/3/14. Whilst this site has sufficient public utility to be considered for adoption; the currently proposed roads to the existing highway remain unacceptable and prevent this site from being adopted.

However the County Highway Authority has no objection in principle subject to an acceptably amended plan being submitted showing the following revision upon receipt of which final observations will be provided: The County Highway Authority previously stated that the first section of the access road up to the root protection system should also include for the 2 metre footway to run continuously around it thus maintaining a continuous footway along this side of Howe Lane into the site at the internal bell-mouth junction tangent points; in order to provide the shortest detour distance of footway, but at the narrowest point of the access. Either the plan must be amended or these matters addressed by a condition to secure details prior to commencement or a timescale to be agreed in writing with the LPA. The following factors which have again been previously stated still make the remainder of the access road(s) unsuitable for adoption and give cause for concern over safety:

1. Whilst the design has been amended in an attempt to overcome the issues of inadequate forward visibility both within the lateral extent of highway and from the proposed side road access serving the units 2 and 3, a narrow service margin is still shown on the plan around the corner by unit 2 and a tree is now shown on the frontage. This highlights the difficulties of providing and controlling a suitable visibility splay if not within a managed area of open space.

2. The applicant has not achieved a design where

the internal road serving the development can be constructed to an adoptable standard/construction because of the underlying tree roots. There are also concerns with regard to the spread of the tree(s) over the carriageway within the required clearance of 5.105m over the road. The road will therefore remain private and preferably should be signed as such at the boundary with the public highway.

3. Whilst street lighting provision is indicated on

plan some of it is not within areas of footway or

service margins. Informative(s): IFN11 – Advance Payments Code

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 dli@dorsetcc.gov.uk, or in writing at Developer-Led Infrastructure, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ. To fight fires effectively the Fire and Rescue Service needs to be able to manoeuvre its equipment and appliances to suitable positions adjacent to any premises. Therefore, the applicant is advised that they should 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. Consultation is recommended with those providing waste removal as there may be issues relating to the access constraints imposed by the trees and the private road status and a refuse collection point near the public highway may be required. SEDTCS: A contribution is necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning (transport) terms and will contribute to schemes required to mitigate the transport impacts of this proposal in accordance with the South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2. A significant transport modelling exercise was undertaken in 2009 to analyse the potential impact of trips from expected levels of development on the transport networks in south east Dorset. The contribution will be spent on one or more schemes, outlined in the Local Transport Plan 3 or the Local Transport Plan priorities list, designed to mitigate

against this impact. These schemes will be geographically or functionally linked to the development making the contribution.

EDDC Tree Section received 29/08/2014

Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) There are three TPOs that protect trees on the site: Howe Lane No. 3 Verwood protects the group of 5 Oak trees beside Oak Tree Cottage and the row of 5 Oaks across the centre of the site. Howe Lane No. 2 Verwood protects the Oaks immediately behind Mandalay Close. Summerfields Verwood No. 1 protects 2 Oak trees in the south west corner of the site. While the dwellings on plots 4-8 are outside the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of the Oaks on the northern boundary, the garages are not and will require special foundations, or to be moved. Plots 9-16 have no impact on trees. The line of trees in front of Heathy Howe would be better removed; they are poor trees and not subject to a TPO. The block that is 17-21 is outside the RPA of the TPO’d Oaks in the south west corner of the site. The communal open space that surrounds the flats is of a size that will allow reasonable enjoyment of the area without detriment caused by the trees. Plot 29 has TPO’d Oaks to the north of the property which will not cause shading issues. There is some technical detail that will need to be the subject of a planning condition for foundations, hard surfacing and special engineering. This can be achieved through the requirement of a Tree removal and retention plan, a Tree Protection Plan, a Method Statement and a plan showing the alignment of utility apparatus.

Head of Policy Team Received 04/12/2013 I can confirm that the land in question, which is the

subject of the two current planning applications, lies within the existing urban area of Verwood and that therefore there is no objection in principle to the land being developed for residential purposes, subject to consideration of the normal planning policies that apply in the area.

The land was initially identified as a potential housing allocation at the Options Stage of the Core

Strategy, but was deleted as a specific allocation as the Plan progressed as there was no need to formally identify it for development as the principle that it could be acceptable has already been established by it being within the existing urban area, as set out above.

The site does not fall within a flood zone.

Tim Davis, Housing Development Officer Received 01/10/13

I write to comment on the above Planning Application in my capacity as the Council’s Housing Development and Enabling Manager. Supporting both Planning Policy and Development Management colleagues, my role seeks to optimize the provision of affordable housing in line with adopted policy, and to ensure that proposals are deliverable and that identified housing needs are met. My remit is primarily aimed at affordable housing, although the Council is increasingly concerned that new residential developments include ‘appropriate’ forms of open market housing, i.e. types and tenures that address local needs and demands, and contribute towards a balanced housing market. The Design and Access Statement for this proposal confirms that it will include 29 homes of which 11 are to be ‘affordable’ to meet the Council’s current policy requirements as set out within Local Plan policy HODEV5 and updated in “Affordable and Special Needs Housing and the Provision of Small Dwellings” SPG (Adopted 2005). It is acknowledged that with 11 affordable homes out of a total of 29 units the Planning Application proposes 38% affordable housing rather than 40%, however the shortfall represents less than 0.6% of a single unit and in all other respects the outlined proposal follows affordable housing guidance given by the Council. Guidance given to the Applicant’s affordable housing consultant included:-

• If an application came forward for anything less than 40% affordable housing (even by 1%) then it would be a matter for Committee to approve

• If an application came forward for 40% affordable housing, then the council would generally seek 70% affordable or social rent (with assured or fixed term tenancies) and 30% intermediate affordable housing (although some flexibility might be exercised in the current climate)

• The Council would require ALL affordable housing units to meet prevailing HCA design and build standards, including Housing Quality Indicators and Code for Sustainable Homes. And the Council would expect the housing to be provided by an Approved Provider.

• That the Council would require ‘tenure blind’ design and would wish to see the affordable housing units integrated within the private housing in clusters, if the ability to do so were not compromised by other planning interests

In terms of the mix of affordable housing it is pleasing to note that the proposal being considered includes the types and sizes of affordable housing outlined at the pre-application stage however no mention is made of tenure within the Design and Access Statement. Earlier discussions with the Housing Consultant centered on the need for a mix of tenure types including no less than 70% for Affordable Rent and/or Social Rent and 30% for Intermediate Affordable Housing (e.g. shared ownership). The desire to achieve a greater degree of integration between the affordable and market housing elements was also expressed from the outset, although it was noted and acknowledged that it may be difficult to achieve a higher level of integration if the remainder of the development was deemed appropriate and acceptable for lower density detached dwellings. Nonetheless, as set out in the earlier bullet points, careful detailed design should ensure that the affordable housing element be “tenure blind”, with similar external design features and construction materials being applied throughout the development rather than an approach that risked separating and segregating the affordable homes. Conclusion I am pleased to see this proposal coming forward and that the Applicant has taken previous guidance into consideration. Although broadly supported (from an affordable housing viewpoint), if the scheme is approved it will be necessary to ensure that a legal S106 incorporates the general principles contained within this memorandum as well as the numbers and types of units being offered. Further comments Received 10/04/14 I write concerning the above two planning applications and the provision of affordable housing to meet adopted Council policy.

Having previously provided consultation responses on these two linked planning applications, I would like to submit a final response clarifying the affordable housing outputs that will be necessary to fulfil policy in connection with both schemes, and to set out appropriate and acceptable affordable housing heads of terms for the associated legal planning agreement. In total the two proposals are to include 29 homes, of which 11 are to be affordable (38%). The affordable housing offer is therefore marginally below currently adopted policy (40%), however the offer is still deemed acceptable, given that:-

• the percentage shortfall equates to approximately ½ a unit;

• that current policy does not make provision for shortfalls, and

• the combined proposal will meet policy requirements in all other respects including a commitment to providing an acceptable tenure split (not less than 7 units for rent and not more than 4 units for intermediate affordable housing) and a mix of affordable housing types and sizes that will address identified housing need priorities

1 bed flat 45m2 3 (Rent)

2 bed flat 57m2 2 (Rent)

2 bed house 67m2 2 (Shared hip)

3 bed house 76m2 2 (Shared Ownership)

3 bed house 82m2 2 (Rent)

Although a number of key principles were previously discussed and agreed with a Housing Consultant acting for the Applicant, all matters will need to be finalized to the Councils satisfaction within a S106 legal planning agreement, applying the definitions, principles and mechanisms contained within the attached Heads of Terms document. Primary requirements include the following:-

• That development cannot commence until the full details of an Affordable Housing Scheme have been agreed with the Council, in a plan and schedule showing the location of each affordable unit, cross referenced to identify and define the respective types, tenures and sizes as set out within the heads of terms document;

• That all affordable homes will be provided by an Approved Provider – with: 1. Appropriate mechanisms in the S106 agreement ensuring commitments to affordable housing delivery prior to the commencement of development and

2. Ensuring that all affordable homes are built, complete and ready for occupation, prior 75% occupation of private homes.

• That the Council will require ‘tenure blind’ design making it impossible to discern market and affordable units externally and that affordable units are appropriately clustered, subject to design constraints and to the council’s satisfaction

• That all affordable homes must meet prevailing HCA design, space and build standards, including Housing Quality Indicators and prevailing Code for Sustainable Homes requirements.

• That affordable dwellings are preserved in the long-term for occupation as affordable housing, subject only to primary legislative rights to buy and to “staircase”, and as necessary to enable mortgage lending

• That affordable homes are prioritized for households in housing need and with a local connection to East Dorset

As a Heads of Terms document, it is inevitable that some minor changes may be necessary to the wording of the attached document to finalise affordable housing requirements within a S106 agreement, however, subject to meeting the primary principles contained therein and within this memorandum, I would be pleased to see the scheme secure consent and progress to detailed planning stage and subsequent delivery.

Committee

This Outline application for 29 properties and related access is brought to Committee for determination as the Town Council has raised an objection to the application and there are more than 5 letters of objection, which is at variance with the officer's recommendation of approval. The application should be read in conjunction with the report on the application for 3 chalet bungalows (reference 3/13/0513) submitted in Ful on part of the Outline site which is a separate item on the agenda. Letters of representation:

3 representations expressing support have been received – in particular support is expressed for the affordable housing provision 43 representations of objection have been received from 17 properties in vicinity of the site. The following concerns are raised:

• Inaccuracies in submission and on plans re boundaries (ownership) and trees

• Little credence should be given to comments from people distant from the site

• Scale (especially height) and design of new buildings

• Impact on rural outlook – land is agricultural not urban

• Impact on Listed Building (Oak Tree Cottage)

• Site no longer proposed in Core Strategy and proposal relates to out of date local plan

• No capacity at Verwood First School and proposal would prevent subsequent expansion of Verwood school campus

• Infrastructure of Verwood is inadequate to accommodate development and proposal should contribute towards provision of school and doctor’s facilities

• Inadequate details of street lighting and drainage provision (inc. sewerage) – sewer is a constraint to development and layout indicates development over sewer

• Too close to school - double parking/congestion and inadequate parking provision

• Access inadequate for service and emergency vehicles and access would not be adoptable

• Inappropriate to approve new development until unmade access roads to Howe Lane have been upgraded

• Bridging and unadoptable access results in inadequate provision for refuse storage and collection and for emergency access

• Contrary to good practice guide on planning and access for disabled people

• Impact on Moors River system SSSI, Heathland, Ancient woodland at Heathy Howe, and preserved oak trees on and adjacent site

• Impact on ecology/protected species including bats, owls, badgers, foxes, adders, slow worms, hedgehogs and nightingales

• Impact on drainage and flooding in vicinity of the site, inadequate details of sustainable drainage

• Proposal would use Council land acquired for road improvement/sight splays

• Type of housing; not pepper potted, and time frame for delivery of affordable housing

• Overlooking of proposed properties from existing dwellings in Howe Lane and loss of privacy to existing dwellings in Howe Lane, Summerfields and Mandalay Close

• Physical relationship to and loss of light to properties in Mandalay Close

• Disturbance (noise and pollution) during construction, noise and activity following completion

• Light pollution on environment and impact on neighbouring properties from car headlights using access

• Proposal would devalue properties

• Impact on drainage and surface water and sewage flows.

• Proposal would exacerbate flooding issues at Mandalay Close Officers Report: This application for 29 dwellings is in Outline and details of access and scale have been provided. All other matters are reserved. Background An application (ref: 3/13/0513/FUL) for three detached chalet style dwellings on the northernmost part of the application site adjacent to Oak Tree Cottage, was

presented to Planning Committee on 10th December 2013. The Committee deferred consideration of the Full application in order that it could be considered together with this Outline application for 29 dwellings. A report on application 3/13/0513 appears on the agenda for consideration following this item. The application for three dwellings submitted in FUL, includes a truncated vehicular access to serve two dwellings located at the rear of Oak Tree Cottage and behind a single new dwelling fronting Howe Lane. The outline proposal is dependent on one access from Howe Lane to the shared site and the three dwellings are identified in the indicative layout for the Outline application. The Outline scheme, which identifies access to serve all 29 units from Howe Lane, indicates some changes to the detail of the access arrangements compared to the Full application. Whilst the illustrative material submitted in support of the Outline scheme identifies 3 dwellings of a similar design to those proposed by application 3/13/513 design has not been submitted for consideration as part of this outline scheme and would need to be considered as part of a Reserved Matters submission. Site Description Oak Tree Cottage is a Grade II Listed one and a half storey thatched dwelling with vehicular access from Howe Lane. Howe Lane is characterised by single and two storey detached dwellings of varying designs which are generally aligned parallel to Howe Lane on plots at a right angle to the road. The 1.24 hectares application site comprises a small field fronting Howe Lane to the side of Oak Tree Cottage, and a large paddock field at the rear/south of Oak Tree Cottage. The large paddock field drops approx. 2m from north to south and is bounded to the south by a woodland (Heathy Howe), which is located in the river valley to the south of the site. The western boundary is marked by a drainage ditch which separates the site from open space associated with the adjacent school grounds and south of Howe Lane Education allocation in the Core Strategy (Policy VTSW2). The eastern boundary is shared with two storey residential properties in the Summer Fields cul-de sac. The other site boundaries of the application site are shared with detached bungalows in the Mandalay Close cul de sac and detached two storey dwellings fronting Howe Lane. There are a number of mature trees along the southern boundary of the site. A small group of trees in the south western corner of the site, a line of trees along the northern boundary of the paddock and a group of preserved trees adjacent to Oak Tree cottage are subject of tree preservation orders.

Current Proposal This outline proposal is for 29 dwellings with a mix of house types and also market, shared ownership and social rented housing. There are 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings, 7 x 3 bedroom dwellings, 15 x 4 bedroom dwellings, 2 x 2 bedroom flats and 3 x 1 bedroom flats. The application is submitted to establish the principle of the development and all matters apart from access and scale are reserved for subsequent approval. The design, disposition, orientation and layout of the proposed dwellings is not before the Local Planning Authority for consideration under this Outline application During consideration of the application the proposal has been amended to revise the configuration of the access and to reduce the site area by amending the boundary with the school site. Although not forming part of the outline application, the applicant has submitted illustrative plans to demonstrate how a residential layout for 29 dwellings could be configured on the site. Illustrative floor plans and elevations have also been submitted to inform consideration of how the specified property types could be distributed on the site. For clarity, however, this outline application is only seeking to obtain permission to develop the land to provide 29 dwellings of the sizes described above, together with the means of access. The final layout, arrangement, disposition, and appearance of the respective homes will form part of a later application seeking approval of these reserved matters. Planning History 88/1086/OUT proposal to form comprehensive residential development - application withdrawn. Three preserved Oak trees adjacent to the boundary of the application site with no.4 Summer Fields have recently been felled. The Council's arboriculturalist has confirmed that when planning permission was granted for the Summerfield estate consent was approved to remove these three Oaks. Whilst they were not removed at the time the estate was developed, given their close proximity to the approved dwelling they were considered to be unsuitable specimens for retention by the Council. Having inspected the remnants of the trees, the Council's Arboricultural Officer also came to the conclusion that the largest Oak was structurally defective and that the removal of this Oak would have jeopardised the safe long term retention of the remaining two Oaks. Pre-application advice provided in 2010: The site is within the defined urban area and therefore the principle of residential development on the site was considered acceptable. However, the trees along the southern side of the site, which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order, may act

as a constraint on the form of any future development. The applicant was advised that an accurate arboricultural survey would therefore be required. The applicant was also advised that:

• any development should respect the character and pattern of development in the area and should not result in harm to the visual amenities of the area or the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

• a tree survey should be carried out and a draft scheme should be submitted for comment prior to the submission of any planning application.

• advice should also be sought from Dorset County Council’s highway section with regard to the access, parking and layout.

• the site is between 400m and 5km of Internationally protected heathland. The Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Strategy requires the payment of a contribution towards mitigation measures.

• contributions towards new transport infrastructure are required in accordance with the South East Dorset Transport Scheme.

• a contribution would be required towards other infrastructure within the Verwood area as set out in the East Dorset Local Plan under Policy OBLIG1.

A S.106 legal agreement would be required to secure the obligations Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF): The NPPF provides advice on how Local Planning Authorities should consider planning applications. Paragraphs 6-15, 17, 47-51, 53, Chapters 7, 10 and 11 are of relevance to the consideration of this application. The general thrust of these paragraphs is that housing applications should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness and permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving character and quality of an area and the way it functions. The approach in the NPPF reaffirms the approach to the consideration of development proposals in the urban area that the Council has consistently taken with regard to the assessment of proposals with respect to their context and appropriateness to the character of the area. East Dorset Local Plan 2002: The site was excluded from the Green Belt in the East Dorset Local Plan. The site therefore falls within the urban area of Verwood and is suitable for housing development in principle, subject to the usual policy and development control considerations. The following policies are relevant: HODEV2 states that new housing will be permitted in urban areas subject to compliance with a number of stipulations. DES2 states that developments will not be permitted which will either impose or suffer unacceptable impacts on or from existing or likely future development or land uses DES6 states that landscaping schemes on the edge of settlements should be comprised of indigenous species.

DES7 states that the felling of any tree or trees will only be permitted where the loss to public amenity is outweighed by one or more stipulated considerations. DES11 states that development will only be allowed where the form, materials, lighting, landscape planting and means of enclosure of roads etc together with the relationship of buildings and property boundaries to these spaces, respect or enhance their surroundings. WENV4 requires development to be sited and designed to protect or enhance the visual and physical quality and natural history interest of rivers or their tributaries and their landscape setting. TEDEV3 requires developers to provide underground ducting for telecommunication cables on housing developments of 0.5ha or more. LTDEV1 encourages minimising the effects of lighting. The above Local Plan policies require careful consideration of the proposal's relationship to and impact upon the character of the area, nature conservation interests and trees, amenities of adjacent properties and highway safety. Christchurch and East Dorset's joint Core Strategy 2014: Christchurch and East Dorset's joint Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State in March 2013. An Examination in Public was held at the end of last year and the Inspector concluded that the Core Strategy is Sound. Both Councils have now adopted the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy proposes to save the above Local Plan policies. Core Strategy Policy KS1 sets the presumption in favour of sustainable development and Policy KS2 requires the location, scale and distribution of development to conform with the settlement hierarchy. This policy recognises Verwood as one of the main settlements which will provide the major focus for residential development including infill development as well as options for some greenfield development. Policy KS4 sets out the housing requirement for the plan period and policies KS11 and KS12 set out the Parking and Transportation requirements for new development. Policy HE1 states that heritage assets will be conserved and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and importance locally to the wider social, cultural and economic environment. Policy HE2 sets out the requirements that seek to ensure that proposals are compatible with their surroundings and will harmonise with the townscape and general character of the areas in which they are set. Policy HE3 states that development will need to protect and seek to enhance the landscape character of the area. Policy HE4 applies to the provision of Open Space within the site Policy LN1 requires all new housing to be built to meet minimum living space standards for both internal and external areas.

Policy LN2 sets the parameters for dealing with the design, layout and density of new housing development. The Policy states that a minimum density of net 30dph will be encouraged, unless this would conflict with the local character and distinctiveness of an area where a lower density is more appropriate. Policy LN3 sets the parameters for the consideration of affordable housing requirements and stipulates that all greenfield development is to provide up to 50% of the residential units as affordable housing. Policy ME1 safeguards biodiversity and geodiversity Policy ME2 provides protection to the Dorset Heathlands and seeks mitigation for any impact in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD. Policies ME3 - ME5 deal with sustainable development and renewable energy provision for new development Policy ME6 stipulates the requirements for dealing with applications affected by flooding Policy ME7 stipulates the requirements for protecting groundwater. Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing and Affordable Housing SPD adopted April 2014 Dorset Heathland Planning Framework SPD South East Dorset Transport Contributions Scheme 2 SPD Planning Considerations The application is in Outline with all matters apart from access and scale Reserved. Permission is sought solely to establish the principle and quantum of the development together with the means of access, at this stage. Given that the appearance, landscaping and layout are reserved for a subsequent application the principal planning considerations in the determination of this outline application are the impact of twenty nine new dwellings upon:

• the character and appearance of the area

• neighbouring properties

• trees

• highway safety

• flood risk and drainage

• biodiversity Whilst an indicative layout and house type have been submitted the LPA can only give limited weight to this information as it is provided to assist the assessment of whether it is likely that 29 dwellings and the access thereto could be accommodated on the site. The determination of the Outline application also needs to consider what provision is to be made for affordable housing and open space, and how the impact on the Dorset Heathlands and the transport infrastructure can be mitigated in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework together with the South East Dorset Transport Contribution scheme.

Character and appearance of the area The site lies within the urban area of Verwood and there is no objection in principle to residential development on this site subject to appropriate consideration of how any new dwellings relate to each other and to the existing dwellings on adjacent land, and subject to consideration of their relationship to and impact on protected trees. 29 dwellings on this site of approximately 1.24 hectares equates to a density of approximately 22 dwellings per hectare. This is at the lower end of densities considered appropriate in urban areas, but reflects the constraints imposed on the development of the site by the preserved trees, the provision of access and the disposition of the surrounding properties. The character of the area surrounding the application site comprises a mixture of single and two storey detached dwellings of varied form and style. Immediately adjacent to the northern part of the site is Oak Tree Cottage which is a Grade II listed building with a thatched roof, and a cul de sac of detached bungalows (Mandalay Close) which extend the depth of development beyond the linear alignment evident along a significant part of Howe Lane. Illustrative plans show the three dwellings (plots 1- 3) proposed on the northern part of the site adjacent to Howe Lane as one and a half storeys in height and they would have the characteristics of large detached dwellings set upon large plots marked by mature trees. These illustrative plans are the same as the plans submitted for these dwellings under a separate application for full planning permission that is subject of a separate report on the Committee agenda. The Committee is however, advised that these design details are not for consideration in the Outline application and the LPA can only consider the appropriateness of the scale of built form in the context of the Outline application. The illustrative Site plan and illustrative plans for plots 1- 3 indicate that the proposed dwellings would be at least 20m away from Oak Tree Cottage and separated from the listed building by the access road and landscaping. The plans submitted with the Full application show that the boundaries of Oak Tree Cottage are to be reinforced by planting and the officer report on that application concludes that “combined with the substantial canopy coverage provided by preserved trees on the application site the separation distances are considered sufficient to preserve the immediate setting of the listed building”. In the event that planning permission is refused for the Full application a reserved matter application and appropriate planning conditions could ensure that the siting, detailing and materials of the proposed dwellings on plots 1-3 are adequately considered in relation to the setting of the listed building and the appearance of the streetscene. The siting of two dwellings on plots 2 and 3 would be behind the group of preserved trees on the northern part of the site and this would limit their visual prominence in the streetscene. Although the new dwelling at the front of the site on plot 1 would be close to Howe Lane its alignment and design could be addressed in a reserved matter application to ensure that it had an appropriate relationship to the streetscene, to preserved trees and to the adjacent dwelling.

Whilst redevelopment of the site will clearly alter its character from the grazing paddock, the site is within the urban area and there is no objection to the principle of development on this site. The indicative layout illustrates how the disposition of one and a half storey and two storey buildings could take place on the site in such a way as to provide for appropriate separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings, and also to provide for appropriate relationships between trees and buildings. The illustrative layout for the southern part of the site is configured around a double headed cul de sac with an eastern spur that stops short of the eastern boundary with Sumerfields. Eleven detached houses are aligned either side of the eastern part of the cul de sac. The western spur runs in a north/south direction and semi-detached properties are served by this part of the cul de sac. In the south west corner of the site a block of 5 flats is indicated with a communal parking area. This block of flats is shown as a 2 and a half storey building with accommodation in the roof. Most of the detached properties are shown with detached garaging set behind the dwellings and most of the semi detached properties are shown with parking spaces to the front of the dwellings. The largest building on the illustrative plan is the block of flats. This building would be furthest away from the existing dwellings at a low point of the site. It would be located adjacent to woodland and school playing fields. The properties on plots 4-8 are shown located more than 30 metres away from the dwellings fronting Howe Lane and these properties and the dwellings on plots 9-16 align with the properties in Sumerfields. The property shown on plot 27 would be approximately 22m away from the bungalows in Mandaly Close. Given the site topography, the above relationships and the retention of the significant trees on site it is concluded that 29 dwellings could be accommodated on the site in a way that would not be significantly harmful to the character of the streetscene. The indicative layout shows that some adjustments would be required to the siting of some buildings relative to the sewer crossing the site, and with regard to the proximity of buildings to protected trees. However, the illustrative layout does indicate that it would be possible to distribute properties across the site in a way which would accord with saved policy HODEV2 of the East Dorset Local Plan and Policy HE2 of the Core Strategy. The density of 22 dwellings per hectare is low compared to the objectives set out in the National and Local Planning policies. However, it is considered that having regard to the constraints imposed by the site topography, proximity of the listed building, adjacent dwellings, trees, and sewer alignment and having regard to the variety of property sizes indicated, this density of development is appropriate and could be justified as making best use of urban land in this location. It is likely that in order to secure a higher density of development on this site larger buildings and/or a greater dominance of built form to plot ratio could result in a development that appeared cramped and out of character with the site context, and/or would have a greater impact on the amenities of adjacent dwellings. Subject to a reserved matter application securing detailed siting and design, good quality building materials and landscaping it is considered that a scheme for 29

dwellings could comply with the relevant design policies of the Development Plan. A reserved matter application could adequately address concerns about the visual prominence and impact of the new dwellings relative to the streetscene and thereby minimise any impact on the character of the area. Impact upon neighbouring properties The properties in Mandalay Close are single storey detached dwellings and their common boundaries with the application site are marked by close boarded fencing. The properties in Summerfields are two storey detached dwellings which abut the application site side on at the end of a cul de sac spur on that development. Although the indicative layout shows the new dwellings on the northern part of the site are located close to the adjacent properties in Mandalay, the layout and detailed design would be considered in a reserved matter application. It is considered that having regard to the constraints to development provided by the preserved trees, it would be possible to locate dwellings on this part of the site in such a way as to have an appropriate physical relationship to the adjacent dwellings. Notwithstanding the physical proximity to the properties in Mandalay Close given the orientation and disposition of the new dwellings relative to the bungalows in Mandalay Close it is not considered that the proposal would significantly impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the dwellings in the Close. In this regard it is noted that the officer recommendation on the Full application for three houses is recommended for approval. The illustrative layout shows that the configuration of the properties and their separation distance from Oak Tree Cottage, the properties fronting Howe Lane and the adjacent properties in Summerfields could be implemented in such a way as to ensure that there would not be any significant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of those properties. Issues of privacy in relation to those properties could be adequately addressed at the reserved matters stage through design solutions and/or conditions and the physical relationship of any new dwelling to those properties could also be addressed at the design stage. Trees There are three TPOs that protect trees on the site – see advice provided by arboricultural officer. The canopies of the trees on and adjacent to the site are visible from the surrounding road network making a significant contribution to the sylvan character of the area. The loss of such trees would be to the detriment of the character and amenity of the area and they represent a constraint to development of this site. The arboricultural officer acknowledges that the dwellings on plots 4-8 are outside the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of the Oaks on the northern boundary, but advises that the garages are not and will require special foundations, or to be moved. The arboricultural officer also states that:

• Plots 9-16 have no impact on trees, but that the line of trees in front of Heathy Howe would be better removed; they are poor trees and not subject to a TPO.

• The block that is 17-21 is outside the RPA of the TPO’d Oaks in the south west corner of the site. The communal open space that surrounds the flats is of a size that will allow reasonable enjoyment of the area without detriment caused by the trees.

• Plot 29 has TPO’d Oaks to the north of the property which will not cause shading issues.

Although the Head of the Tree and Landscape Team has expressed some detailed concerns with regard to the relationship of some of the structures shown on the indicative layout relative to the protected trees it is considered that the concerns could be adequately addressed during the consideration of a reserved matter application. Subject to subsequent consideration of the disposition of garages/outbuildings in a Reserved Matter application, and to conditions to secure Tree protection/retention, hard surfacing, technical details for foundations and engineering, the arboricultural officer does not raise an objection to the proposal. This can be achieved through the requirement of a Tree removal and retention plan, a Tree Protection Plan, a Method Statement and a plan showing the alignment of utility apparatus. The LPA could not therefore sustain a reason for refusal of the Outline scheme in terms of any concerns with regard to impact on preserved trees. It is considered that adequate space exists on the application site to enable the disposition of 29 buildings and the configuration of built form to be accommodated in a way which avoids direct impact on the trees and future pressure for significant works to the trees. Such a layout is likely to result in alterations to the disposition and footprint/size of buildings and any support for the principal of development on this site would be subject to such detailed consideration at a reserved matters stage. Provided that a layout resulted in the retention of the existing trees on and adjacent to the site the proposal would not significantly impact on the sylvan characteristics of the area. Road Layout and Highway Safety All developments should provide minimum vehicle and cycle parking necessary to serve the development and prevent additional on-street parking, safe vehicular access to and from the development and servicing facilities that will not cause highway congestion or danger to highway users. The access has been amended to take on board the reservations expressed by the Building Control and Highways officers during the processing of the application. The County Highways officer has no objection in principle to the road layout and the proposal provides adequate visibility onto Howe Lane. Concerns have been expressed with regard to the visibility around the corner by unit 2 and comments have been made with regard to lighting, but subject to appropriate conditions, the County Highway Officer is satisfied with the road layout and parking arrangements and the road layout therefore complies with policy. In the event that a consent is granted for the Full application these matters are also addressed in the report to Committee on the application for three dwellings.

In order to protect preserved trees on the front part of the site the access road has been designed to include a bridging point around the roots of the trees. As a result of this bridging point the County Highways Officer has advised that the County Council would not adopt the new access because of concerns with regard to the ongoing liabilities and maintenance of such an engineered design. Although not ideal, the fact that the residential development would be served by a road that the County Council have determined should not be adopted, is not in itself a reason for refusal of this application. Details of servicing /refuse collection arrangements could be addressed at the reserved matters stage, and informatives are recommended with regard to waste collection, fire and rescue access, SEDTCS contributions and Section 219-225 of the Highways Act 1980. Flood Risk and Drainage The Environment Agency have no objection in principle to the proposal but offer advice with regard to the content of the Flood Risk Assessment and suggest a condition to prevent development from encroaching too close to the watercourse running alongside one of the boundaries of the site at the rear of plots 17-27. The Environment Agency also recommend a condition to secure a surface water drainage scheme and provide advice as to what should be addressed by the drainage scheme – the condition has been added and the advice notes included as an informative. Other informatives address their recommendations with regard to sustainable construction, pollution prevention and waste management. In accordance with the subsequent advice from the Partnership’s Engineer, the County Council have been consulted with regard to the Environment Agency’s comments and any response will be reported to Committee. This location is not identified as lying within an area classified as being susceptible to significant flood risk and the proposal indicates that soft landscaping could be provided on site which would provide an opportunity to help delay run off from the site and protect groundwater. Although clarification has not been provided by the applicant with regard to the appropriateness of a SUDS approach to drainage of the site, an appropriate drainage solution to the development of the site can be secured by condition. Such provision would meet the requirements of Policies ME6 and ME7 of the Core Strategy. It is therefore concluded that the new development will have no adverse effect in terms of surface water drainage and that the foul drainage will be adequately dealt with. The proposal therefore complies with the requirements of the NPPF. Other matters Biodiversity The proposal is accompanied by a biodiversity mitigation plan to secure appropriate mitigation of impact on bats. A number of representations refer to a variety of other species using the site and it is therefore recommended that a condition to secure an ecological survey and mitigation plan is added to any consent.

Lighting Lighting details can be addressed at the reserved matters stage to ensure compliance with Policy LTDEV1. Legal Agreement Affordable Housing Given that the application was submitted in March 2013 the need for affordable housing has been considered in terms of the requirements set out in the previously adopted Local Plan. The Council's Housing Development and Enabling Manager acknowledges that the application proposes to provide 11 affordable homes. This level of provision amounts to 38% of the housing within the development which is almost at the target level of 40%. The shortfall represents less than 0.6% of a single unit and in all other respects the proposal follows affordable housing guidance given by the Council. The applicant has taken previous guidance into consideration and the proposal includes the types and sizes of affordable housing outlined at the pre-application stage. A legal agreement is required to secure the general principles set out by the Council's Housing Development and Enabling Manager. Open Space The application site could accommodate a Local Area of Play (10m by 10m) designed for children under 6. Subject to a legal agreement securing the provision of such a play area within walking distance from all houses within the development and in accordance with the standards for open space provision as set out in Appendix C of the East Dorset Local Plan the proposal would satisfy the Local Authority's requirements for open space provision. The provision of this area and its future management will be subject to the terms of a Section 106 Agreement. South East Dorset Transport Contribution Scheme and Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework. The applicants and owners of the site have indicated an intention to complete a S106 Agreement to secure the obligations required in accordance with the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Documents. A completed Legal Agreement would satisfy the requirements of Policies ME1 and ME2. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to detailed consideration of tree/building relationships and scale and disposition of built form at the reserved matters stage it is considered that the site could accommodate a development of 29 dwellings without significant harm to the character and appearance of the area or to the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties. On this basis it is concluded that the proposals would accord with Saved Local Plan policy HODEV2, and Policy HE2 of Part 1 of the Core Strategy This scheme complies with the relevant national and local policies, including the need to provide affordable housing. The concerns of the residents in many instances reflect an objection of principle, which cannot be supported in view of the site history relating to the Local Plan. Other

concerns of local residents have been fully considered in the above analysis. This application has been assessed against this policy background and it is concluded that it complies with each of the policies that apply to this site. This recommendation is subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement in relation to: Open Space and Affordable Housing provision and to secure the contributions to mitigate impact upon the Dorset Heathlands and the Transport Infrastructure in accordance with the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Documents. Recommendation: GRANT SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF LEGAL AGREEMENT AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS Conditions/Reasons:- 1 (a) Details of the appearance, landscaping and layout, (hereinafter called

"the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. (b) An application for approval of any 'Reserved Matter' shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. (c) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by the provisions of the Town and

Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2010.

2 The layout details required by Condition 1 shall comprise a comprehensive

layout plan for the whole site, with details of the building alignment, number of storeys, type of dwelling (i.e. house, flat etc) and height for each building, and any phasing proposed.

Reason: To ensure the site is developed comprehensively in the interests of

retaining its identity and to ensure that the new dwellings have an appropriate relationship to each other and to existing dwellings on adjacent sites.

3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with

the following approved plans: 8238/202 Block and Location Plan

8238/223A Road Layout Plan Mark Hinsley Arboricultural Consultants Ltd Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement Heads of Terms dated 5th February 2013 and accompanying Tree Protection Plan 2830, or any revision to these that may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning 4 Before any on-site work commences to construct the dwellings and any

other structures on the application site, details and samples of all their external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure the external appearance of the buildings and any other

structures is satisfactory. 5 Plans and particulars showing the finished floor levels, related to ordnance

datum or fixed point within the site, of the ground floor of the proposed building(s), (and as appropriate the closest adjacent building beyond the site) 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 thereto. 6 Plans and particulars showing the alignment height and materials of all

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

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the enclosure details of the

proposal and its implementation and retention. 7 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 and comply with Policy ME6 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.

8 No development approved by this permission shall commence until a scheme for water efficiency has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable development and prudent use of natural

resources, and to comply with Policy ME3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy.

9 No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless and until

the first section of the access road from Howe Lane to the root protection system have been constructed to the specification of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local Highway Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

10 Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development shall commence on site until the final construction method statement and specification for the proposed driveway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The driveway shall then be installed as per the approved documents and this condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of its installation.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged 11 Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no

development shall start on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), which is to be in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS and TPP. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be confirmed at a pre-commencement meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

Reason: To prevent trees on/adjacent to the site from being damaged 12 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a

Construction Traffic and Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall show construction traffic access points, areas for the on-site parking and manoeuvring of construction and construction workers/tradesmen's vehicles, storage of construction materials and areas to receive deliveries. It shall also incorporate pollution prevention

measures. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and programme of works.

Reason: To minimise disruption to the local road network and prevent pollution of

the water environment. 13 The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with

the requirements of the Biodiversity Mitigation Plan approved by Dorset County Council's Natural Environment Team, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity at the site as a result of

the permitted use and development. 14 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, at least 10% of

the total regulated energy (used for space heating, hot water provision, fixed lighting and ventilation) used in the dwellings at the site shall be provided by renewable, decentralised and low-carbon energy sources. This shall be supported by a statement to demonstrate how this will be achieved.

Reason: To help meet the UK's carbon emissions targets and comply with Policy

ME4 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy. 15 Plans and particulars showing the provision to be made for the storage and

disposal of refuse and recycling, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and construction of each dwelling shall not be commenced before the refuse storage details relevant to that dwelling have been approved. Such provision as is agreed shall be implemented prior to occupation of each dwelling and thereafter permanently retained.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied with the details of the proposal. 16 Before work to construct the dwellings is started, a statement shall be

submitted to and approved by the Council to show that the design and construction of the dwellings will accord with the principles of carbon emissions reduction; water and energy efficiency, and that sustainable and low carbon options have been explored. The dwellings shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved statement, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To help meet the UK's carbon emissions targets and comply with Policy

ME3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy. 17 Prior to commencement of works (including site clearance and any other

preparatory works) details of section levels for the proposed new site access from Howe Lane along with detailed construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure trees in the vicinity of the site access are protected during

construction. 18 Prior to any equipment, materials or machinery being brought onto the site

for the purposes of development, a site plan annotated with the final location of service routes shall be submitted. Where these are located within the root protection areas of trees shown on the submitted Tree Protection Plan, a method statement shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to any development commencing on site. Their installation will then be in strict accordance with the approved plans and method statement.

Reason: To protect trees on site during construction. 19 Prior to commencement of works (including site clearance and any other

preparatory works) the scheme for the protection of trees in accordance with the submitted Tree Protection Plan (or any revision thereto that may be agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be implemented and at least 5 working days' notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been installed.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual

amenities of the area. 20 Prior to the commencement of works (including site clearance and

demolition) a Pre-commencement site meeting as set out in the submitted Mark Hinsley Arboricultural Consultants Ltd Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement Heads of Terms dated 5th February 2013 shall be held on site.

Reason: To ensure the avoidance of damage to existing trees and natural features

during the construction phase.

21 Prior to commencement of development the full details of an Affordable Housing Scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include a plan and schedule showing the location of each affordable unit, cross referenced to identify and define the respective types, tenures and sizes as set out within the heads of terms document/Unilateral Undertaking.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made for affordable housing 22 All affordable homes will be provided by a Provider Approved by the Local

Planning Authority and in compliance with appropriate mechanisms in the S106 agreement ensuring commitments to affordable housing delivery prior to the commencement of development. All affordable homes shall be built, complete and ready for occupation, prior to 75% occupation of private homes.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made for affordable housing

23 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-

enactment thereof no outbuildings or extensions to the dwellings, walls or

fences shall be constructed within 4 metres of the watercourse running

along the western boundary of the application site without express

planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: Any enlargement of the approved houses in accordance with Classes A

and B or erection of outbuildings in accordance with Class E within 4

metres of the watercourse could impact upon the maintenance access and

possible future improvement of the watercourse to the detriment of its

function as an ordinary watercourse for drainage purposes contrary to

Policy ME6 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy adopted

2014.

Informatives:

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

In arriving at a decision to APPROVE the application, the applicant received pre-application advice, and during the processing of the application was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

2 To fight fires effectively the Fire and Rescue Service needs to be able to

manoeuvre its equipment and appliances to suitable positions adjacent to any premises. Therefore, the applicant is advised that prior to submitting a Reserved Matter application they should consult with Building Control and Dorset Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that Fire Safety - Approved Document B Volume 1 Dwelling houses B5 of The Building Regulations 2006 can be fully complied with.

3 Prior to submitting a Reserved Matter application consultation is

recommended with those providing waste removal as there may be issues relating to the access constraints imposed by the trees and the private road status and specific servicing arrangements and/or a refuse collection point near the public highway may be required.

4 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 Highways at Dorset County Council should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. Contact can be

made by telephone to Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by email at dorsetdirect@dorsetcc.gov.uk, or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

5 This planning permission is subject to the completion of a Section 106

agreement to provide affordable housing in accordance with the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD; a contribution under the South East Dorset Transportation Scheme 2; and a contribution towards mitigation of the impact on the Dorset Heathlands in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands SPD. The applicant is also required to make provision for a Local Area of Play in accordance with LPA’s requirements for open space provision.

6 In relation to Condition 7, it is recommended that the developer investigates

and specifies all appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) for surface water management on the site. These techniques involve controlling any sources of increased surface water, and include interception and reuse, porous paving/surfaces, infiltration techniques, detention/attenuation, wetlands.

There must be no interruption to the existing surface water and/or land drainage arrangements of the surrounding land as a result of the operations on the site. Provisions must be made to ensure that all existing drainage systems external to the site continue to operate effectively.

The failure to maintain surface water drainage schemes could result in increased flood risk to the development and elsewhere. The surface water management scheme for the proposed development must meet criteria stipulated and agreed by the Environment Agency.

7 The development should include water efficient systems and fittings. These should include dual-flush toilets, water butts, water-saving taps, showers and baths, and appliances with the highest water efficiency rating (as a minimum). Greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting should be considered. An appropriate submitted scheme to discharge the condition will include a water usage calculator showing how the development will not exceed a usage level of 105 litres per person per day.

8 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 - wheel washing - the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles - the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds - the control and removal of spoil and wastes.

The applicant should refer to the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines at: http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pollution-prevention-guidance-ppg

9 Sustainable design and construction should be implemented across the proposed development. This is important in limiting the effects of and adapting to climate change. Running costs for occupants can also be significantly reduced.

The Code for Sustainable Homes should be complied with, achieving the highest level possible. For details on compliance with the Code the applicant is advised to visit: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/codesustainabilitystandards

10 In respect of Condition 9; this access will need to be the subject of a Section

278 Highways Agreement (with Dorset County Highways). The applicant should liaise with Dorset County Council Highways in this respect.

11 All new housing is required to be built to meet minimum living space standards

for both internal and external areas. In this respect, when considering any reserved matters application or full application for new housing at the application site, the Council will apply the Homes and Community Agency Housing Quality Indicators (HQI) relating to private open space, unit sizes, unit layout and accessibility within the unit (HQI Sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.9 and 5.1 to 5.1.13). The applicant is expected to have regard to these when presenting details of the housing plots and floor plans.

12 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy

Framework 2012, national Planning Practice Guidance 2014, Policies KS1, KS2, KS4, ME1- ME7, HE1, HE2 HE3, HE4, LN1, LN2, LN3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy, and saved Policies HODEV2, DES2, DES6, DES7 and DES11 of the East Dorset Local Plan in the determination of the application.

13 With regard to conditions 21 and 22 the applicant is advised that the Council will

require:

• ‘tenure blind’ design making it impossible to discern market and affordable units externally.

• that affordable units are appropriately clustered, subject to design constraints and to the council’s satisfaction

• all affordable homes must meet prevailing HCA design, space and build standards, including Housing Quality Indicators and prevailing Code for Sustainable Homes requirements.

• that affordable dwellings are to remain in the long-term for occupation as affordable housing, subject only to primary legislative rights to buy and to “staircase”, and as necessary to enable mortgage lending.

• that affordable homes are to be prioritized for households in housing need and with a local connection to East Dorset

14 The applicant is advised that in accordance with advice from the Environment Agency the following details will be required by the Local Planning Authority in order to discharge condition 7:

1) A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing the pipe networks and any attenuation ponds, swales, soakaways and drainage storage tanks. This plan should show any pipe node numbers referred to in the drainage calculations and the invert and cover levels of manholes. 2) A manhole schedule. 3) Model runs to demonstrate that the critical storm duration is being used. 4) Confirmation of the agreed discharge rate, with any flow control devices indicated on the plan with the rate of discharge stated. 5) Calculations showing the volume of attenuation provided, demonstrating how the system operates during a 1 in 100 critical duration storm event. If overland flooding occurs, a plan should also be submitted detailing the location of overland flow paths and the likely depths of flooding. A 30% allowance for climate change should be incorporated into the scheme in accordance with NPPF. 6) Where infiltration forms part of the proposed stormwater system such as infiltration trenches and soakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to be submitted in accordance with BRE digest 365.

15 In accordance with the waste hierarchy, the applicant is advised to consider

reduction, reuse and recovery of waste in preference to offsite incineration and disposal to landfill during site construction.

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.

16 The applicant is 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 dli@dorsetcc.gov.uk, or in writing at Developer-Led Infrastructure, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

Item Number 3 Ref:

3/14/0927/HOU

Proposal:

Proposed roof conversion, 2 No. new roof dormers and extension to raise and increase size of roof.

Site Address:

6 Newlands Way, Broadstone, Dorset, for Mr A BARLOW

BIA BIA BIA ECON1 HEATH HEATH NATS URBANA

Site Notice expired: 13 November 2014

Advert Expiry Date:

Nbr-Nfn expired: 03 November 2014

Parish Comments: Object: The new proposal is not sufficiently altered to

address the Parish Council's previous objections which were that it is out of keeping with the street scene which is all single storey bungalows, due to its height and bulk. In addition, the rear dormers would overlook neighbouring gardens.

Officers Report: This application comes to committee at the request of Cllr P Edwards. There have been 6 letters of objection from other residents in Newlands Way which raise issues of loss of privacy, adverse impact on the character of the area, and that an undesirable precedent would be set. The proposal This is an application to raise and extend the roof of this detached bungalow to provide first floor accommodation (2 bedrooms, ensuite, store and landing). The design shows cropped hipped gables at the sides with a steeply pitched gable at the front facing Newlands Way. The ridge is to be raised 1600mm above the existing ridge height, which according to the submitted street scene elevation would be 700mm above the ridge of 4 Newlands Way and 1300mm above the ridge of 8 Newlands Way. This design will produce an area of flat roof where the ridge would ordinarily be. It is to be noted that this flat roofed area is not shown on the upper floor plan. Two flat roofed dormer windows are shown on the rear elevation and these would serve bedrooms and be the sole windows to these habitable rooms. Planning history An application for a roof extension over the main dwelling and its attached garage was refused under planning application 3/13/0628/HOU, and subsequently dismissed at appeal. In dismissing the appeal, the Planning Inspector took the following views:

• The similarity in the size and design of the bungalows in Newlands Way, set against the back drop of the mature trees, creates a spacious and homogenous character to the area.

• The provision of a first floor would raise the roof to a level significantly higher than that of the neighbouring properties. Even allowing for the gently sloping nature of Newlands Way, the property would form an incongruously tall anomaly in the street scene.

• To raise the roof and provide dormer windows would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

• There are a number of properties in the area that have been extended in a similar way to the proposal. However, these are set in different context to the application site, and they have a very different relationship to their neighbours and surrounding area.

• There would be harm to the occupants of 4 and 8 Newlands Way from the significant increase in ridge height. The increased height and size of the extended dwelling, together with the proximity of neighbouring properties and their low pitched design, would result in an oppressive and overbearing outlook for the occupants of neighbouring properties.

• The two dormer windows on the rear elevation would introduce overlooking of the rear gardens of both neighbouring properties. He noted that in most residential areas some degree of overlooking is unavoidable. However, in this case, the single storey nature of surrounding properties means rear gardens are relatively private and not overlooked from first floor windows. The provision of dormers would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupants of 4 and 8 Newlands Way.

Members are advised that the applicant's agent submitted plans for a similar design prior to the current application and Officers gave informal pre-application advice that was unsupportive of the scheme. The differences between the scheme dismissed at appeal and the current scheme In comparison with the dismissed scheme, the current scheme reduces the eaves of the roof by 900mm, drops its ridge by 800mm and omits the pitched roof over the garage. It also omits the first floor window in the front gable and omits the pitched roofs for the rear facing dormers. The result is a less bulky design when compared with the appeal scheme. Planning assessment The appeal decision relating to the previous application is a material consideration in the determination of the current application, and it should be used to assess the current scheme. Impact on the character and appearance of the area The lowering of the roof height now proposed would reduce the harm to the character and appearance of the area, and this goes some way to addressing the Inspector's concerns. Additionally, the removal of hipped roofs over the rear dormer windows would reduce the bulk of the scheme, and make them less prominent in the rear roof plane.

However, the bulk of the revised design remains excessive for the site's context, and would be out of character with the scale of adjacent dwellings. In this respect the Inspector's concerns are not addressed. The revised design to provide the proposed accommodation has resulted in what is considered to be a contrived design. This is because it incorporates a cropped hip/flat roof, which has a pronounced steeply pitched gable facing the road, and these design elements do not work well together. The gable facing the road would be emphasised by the revised design, as it would appear larger in relation to the reduced scale of roof extension than the appeal scheme. It is considered that the design to marry this feature to a cropped hip/flat roofed main roof would create a visually discordant building in the street scene. The result is a poor design that is contrary to paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as it fails to take the opportunity for improving the character of the area. The proposal is also contrary to Policy HE2 of the Core Strategy (CS) as it would not be compatible with its surroundings in terms of bulk and visual impact. Impact on living conditions of 4 and 8 Newlands Way The lower height and smaller bulk of the proposal would reduce some of the impact on the occupants of the neighbouring bungalows at 4 and 8 Newlands Way, and this would be most noticeable for 4 Newlands Way. It is considered that the impact from the additional bulk created by the proposed extension would not adversely impact upon the occupants of 4 Newlands Way, given the generous separation distance between the extension and this property. The impact on the occupants of 8 Newlands Way would also be reduced given the lower ridge height, and there is not considered to be an overbearing impact on this property from the proposal's bulk. The Inspector advised that the two rear facing dormer windows would introduce overlooking of the rear gardens of 4 and 8 Newlands Way, and because the adjacent dwellings are single storey and enjoy gardens that are not overlooked from first floor level, they enjoy high privacy levels. The rear dormers would introduce an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupants of these bungalows, and the omission of the hipped roofs would do nothing to address this issue. Therefore this aspect of the proposal remains unaltered from the appeal scheme, and Officers advise that the level of overlooking is unacceptable as it will adversely affect the amenity of the occupants of 4 and 8 Newlands Way significant from loss of privacy. Conclusion The revised scheme, although reduced in height and bulk, fails to fully overcome the issues raised by the Planning Inspector in relation to the dismissed appeal at the site

under Planning Application 3/13/0628/HOU. It is recommended for refusal accordingly. Recommendation: REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):-

Conditions/Reasons:- 1 The proposal, on account of its excessive bulk and contrived design in

comparison to adjacent properties, would be out of character with the single storey scale and low-level nature of the adjacent dwellings. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as it is considered to be a poor design that fails to take the opportunity for improving the character of the area. It is also contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy as it would be incompatible with its surroundings in terms of its architectural style and visual impact.

2 The proposal, on account of the rear facing dormer windows, would

introduce a significant level of overlooking to the rear gardens of the neighbouring bungalows at 4 and 8 Newlands Way. This would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of these properties, given their rear gardens are presently not overlooked by first floor windows. The proposal is consequently contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy as it would be incompatible with its surroundings in terms of its relationship with nearby properties.

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 was advised that the proposal did not accord with the development plan and that there were no material planning considerations to outweigh these problems.

2 Regard was had to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy

Framework 2012 and national Planning Practice Guidance 2014 in the determination of the application.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, the refused plans comprise the following

drawings;

DMWA Architects Job No.130215 Drawing No.031: Proposed Elevations dated 24.09.2014

DMWA Architects Job No. 130215 Drawing No.032 Rev A: Proposed Elevations, Plans and Site dated 24.09.2014

Item Number 4 Ref:

3/14/0782/HOU

Proposal:

Proposed Loft Conversion and New Roof to Existing Garage

Site Address:

107 Station Road, West Moors, Ferndown, for Mr T And M Hague & Frewin

BIA BIA BIA ECON2 HEATH NATS URBANA

Site Notice expired: 8 October 2014

Advert Expiry Date:

Nbr-Nfn expired: 3 September 2014

Parish Comments: No objection. Consultee Responses: Officers Report: This application comes to Committee as there have been 5 letters of objection and the officer recommendation is for approval. The objections are on the grounds of loss of privacy, overlooking, design, and character of the area. The Parish Council have no objection to the proposal. 107 Station Road is a brick-built, detached bungalow within the urban area of West Moors. The land slopes slightly to the west of the site. The area is characterised by bungalows. Planning History: Previously a double garage and new access was permitted under reference 3/86/0916/FUL. There have been no subsequent planning applications on the above site. Proposal: This proposal is for a loft conversion and a replacement roof to the existing garage. The garage currently has a flat roof which a dummy pitched roof to the front and it is proposed to replace this with a roof, which would be cropped at one end, extending over the garage from the bungalow towards 109 Station Road. The proposed new garage roof would have a height of 5.1m. The loft conversion would be facilitated through the insertion of 6 roof lights (1 on the front elevation, 1 on the south (side) elevation, and 4 on the north (side) elevation). A dormer style window is also proposed on the rear. The roof of the bungalow would stay the same height as the existing at 7.1m. Considerations: Policy Considerations:

The main policy consideration is HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 - Core Strategy 2014. Impact on Neighbour Amenity: The roof light on the south side of the bungalow, serving the proposed en-suite, is situated to the front of the property, looking towards the front garden of 103 Station Road which is about 1m away. Given the orientation of 107 Station Road, the 4 roof lights serving a bedroom proposed on the north side would face the blank side elevation of 109 Station Road and at a distance of 12.5m. It is your officer view that there would therefore be no detrimental impact on neighbour amenity from these windows. Objections have been received from 15 Queens Close, 17 Queens Close, 19 Queens Close, 21 Queens Close, and 103 Station Road on the basis that the rear dormer will overlook the rear gardens of the properties. The rear dormer which serves a bedroom would be approximately 17m from the rear boundary of 107 Station Road. The back to back distances of the properties to the on Queens close are between 35m and 45m away. There are mature trees and bushes on the rear and boundaries, although two of the trees lie outside of the application site and laurel hedging has also been planted along the rear and south side boundary, although this is still establishing itself, which partially obscure the properties to the rear. Notwithstanding the concerns raised by the neighbours for the reasons outlined above, any loss of privacy would therefore not be of such significance to justify a refusal of this application. Additionally, the rear dormer could be constructed under permitted development. Impact on the Street Scene: The proposal would be visible from the street scene however the hipped roof on the garage would be set 12m back from the front boundary and would not appear out of keeping with the street scene. Set toward the rear of the bungalow, the garage would not be visible when approaching from the south. It would be visible when approaching from the north however it would not be intrusive. The replacement garage roof is therefore considered to be acceptable. Precedent: Precedent for rear dormer windows in this area has been set through planning permission being granted under reference 3/13/0149/HOU for a rear dormer at 113 Station Road. Conclusion: It is your officer's view that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the street scene and neighbour amenity for the reasons above and is therefore compatible with the requirements of HE2 of the Core Strategy. This application is recommended 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: Proposed Floor Plans _ Elevation - 160-2 Rev A Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the

development, hereby permitted, shall be identical in every respect to those of the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

existing. Informatives: 1 In determining this application, regard was had of the 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

• 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.