Agenda item

Penn Hill Ward

APP/22/01585/F

Demolish existing house and erect 3 detached houses with parking

Penn Hill Ward

APP/22/01585/F

Demolish existing house and erect 3 detached houses with parking

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Chris Marsden

v  Andrew Creedy

Applicant/Supporters

v  Matt Annen on behalf of the applicant

Ward Councillors

v  Cllr Bryan Dion, objecting

In addition, the Chairman exercised his discretion to permit Andrew Harries, a local resident in attendance, to raise a point of clarification arising from the applicant’s agent’s submission.

RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED contrary to the recommendation to grant set out in the Officer’s report, for the following reasons:

1.    Notwithstanding the recognised variations in the surrounding built form, the scale of development, as represented by the overdevelopment of the plot, and mass of the proposed dwellings is considered to be out of character with the local area. The perceived mass of the buildings being greater due to the lack of suitable separation between them such that they would appear as one. The proposal would therefore result in a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the area. As such, it is considered that the scheme would fail to preserve or enhance the area’s residential character, contrary to Policies PP27 and PP28 of the Poole Local Plan 2018. 

2.    The proposed dwellings, due to their proximity and orientation to surrounding residential properties, would result in an overbearing relationship with unacceptable levels of overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly to those dwellings along Earlham Drive. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PP27 of the Poole Local Plan 2018 in that it would result in a harmful impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents. 

3.    The application site is within 5Km of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).  This SSSI is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area) and Ramsar site, and is also part of the Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of Conservation).  The proximity of these European sites (SPA and SAC) means that determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the proposals will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland.  It is clear, on the basis of advice from Natural England that, notwithstanding the CIL contribution, no avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects through Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) has been secured. In the absence of any form of acceptable mitigation it is likely to have an adverse effect on the heathland special features including those which are SPA and SAC features.  Having regard to the Waddenzee judgement (ECJ case C-127/02) the Council is not in a position to be convinced that there is no reasonable scientific doubt to the contrary.  For these reasons, and without needing to conclude the appropriate assessment, the proposal is considered contrary to the recommendations of the Berne Convention Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands, and Policy PP32 and PP39 of the Poole Local Plan (November 2018). 

4.    The application site is within close proximity to Poole Harbour which is a Special Protection Area (SPA), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Ramsar site and the determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to these European designations and the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the proposals will cause no harm to the SPA.  It is clear, on the basis of advice from Natural England that, notwithstanding the CIL contribution, no avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects through Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) has been secured. In the absence of any form of acceptable mitigation it is likely to have an adverse effect on the special features of Poole Harbour including those which are SPA features.  Having regard to the Waddenzee judgement (ECJ case C-127/02) the Council is not in a position to be convinced that there is no reasonable scientific doubt to the contrary.  For these reasons, and without needing to conclude the appropriate assessment, the proposal is considered contrary to the recommendations of the Berne Convention Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to Poole Harbour, and Policy PP32 and PP39 of the Poole Local Plan (November 2018). 

Voting: For – 10, Against – 4, Abstain – 0