Talbot and Branksome Woods ward
APP/23/01051/F
Alteration and upward extension of the
buildings to create second and third floors of accommodation on
each building to create 10 additional apartments in each block (20
in total)
Public Representations
Objectors
vGerald Smith
vKieran Perry – written statement read
out
Applicant/Supporters
vMatt Holmes - Agent
Ward Councillors
vCllr Matthew Gillett in objection
The following are two of the most usual
resolutions:
Resolved to REFUSE permission contrary to the
recommendation set out in the officer’s report for the
following reasons:
- The proposal, by
reason of its cumulative height, scale, bulk, massing and position
in relation to the adjoining building Eaglehurst, would result in
an unacceptable level of overshadowing and a reduction in the
quality of the outlook from the top floor balconies, resulting in
adverse harm to residential amenity, contrary to Policy PP27 of the
Poole Local Plan, and the NPPF 2024.
- The proposal does
not include the provision of 20% adaptable and accessible homes and
therefore would not provide specialist homes that meet the needs of
an aging population, contrary to Policy PP12 of the Poole Local
Plan and the NPPF 2024.
- The proposal, by
reason of its excessive cumulative scale, mass, bulk, height and
detailed design, would increase the residential density of the
site, resulting in overdevelopment. The unsympathetic extensions
and alterations would not reflect the high-quality Art Deco style
of the original building, resulting in harm to the character and
appearance of the host building and character of the area, contrary
to Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan, and the NPPF 2024.
- The proposal would
not provide a satisfactory quantum of amenity space that would meet
the needs of the future occupiers. The proposed bin stores will be
located at an inconvenient distance for the future occupants of the
southern block, resulting in a substandard form of accommodation,
contrary to Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan, and the NPPF
2024.
- The site lies
within 13.8km of New Forest SAC, New Forest SPA and New Forest
Ramsar, which are protected under
European legislation for their wildlife importance, where it has
been demonstrated in conjunction with New Forest Strategic Access
Management and Monitoring Strategy 2023, prepared by Footprint
Ecology and in agreement with Natural England that additional
recreational pressure from additional bedroom numbers have the
potential to harm their integrity. No mitigation or compensation
measures have come forward to address such harms, and it cannot be
ruled out beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that the proposal
would not have a likely significant effect on the sensitive
interest features of the habitat sites, from human pressures,
either alone or in combination with other proposals. Therefore, the
proposal would be contrary to Policy PP33 of the Poole Local Plan
and Paragraph 193 of the NPPF 2024.
- 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, Dorset
Heathlands SPD and Policy PP32 and PP39 of the Poole Local Plan
(November 2018).
- 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).
- In the absence of a
completed S106 planning agreement, no affordable housing has been
secured as part of this development. Therefore, the proposal would
not accord with Policy PP11 of the Poole Local Plan, Affordable
Housing SPD and the NPPF 2024.
Voting: For 4,
Against 2, Abstain 1
Notes: Cllr Chaillnor left the meeting before
this item