Appendix 1 - Development Brief

More documents

Recommendations

Info

fails to respect or enhance the site’s surroundings contrary to policies DES8, DES11 and WENV4. 6 The permeability of the site layout affords uninhibited access along the north eastern boundary, to the rear of Blocks P6 and P7, and there is generally poor delineation of ‘defensible space’ across the site. Furthermore natural surveillance opportunities are limited by the proximity of the dwellings to the edge of the highway. The proposal therefore fails to accord with para. 28 of PPG13 or policy DES10 of the East Dorset Local Plan 7 Situated on and adjacent to this site are many protected trees that provide a good level of visual amenity to the locality. The current proposal does not work in tree terms. The close proximity of Lime (T75) to the corner of flats 191-197 would result in an incongruous juxtaposition being created which would inevitably lead to future applications being submitted to fell or severely prune this tree that the Council would find hard to resist. It is also yet to be clarified how the footpath will be constructed adjacent to this Lime without causing damage to its rooting environment. The creation of parking spaces under the Lime trees on the north eastern aspect of the site will also result in pressure to either fell or severely prune these trees as a result of honeydew deposits that will accumulate on vehicles using these spaces. The loss or damage to any of these trees would be at the detriment to the locality and is therefore contrary to policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan. of measures by the local authorities and other bodies to mitigate such pressures. As the site is classified as a significant site because it is for more than 50 dwellings, it would be expected that the mitigation should be provided through the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) or a combination of a SANG and financial contribution. The applicant has not included either a SANG or any financial contribution towards mitigation following the adopted Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 01.01.07. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be contrary to the recommendation of the Bern Convention Standing Committee on urban development adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands as well as Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation, Environment policies A, B, C and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and Policy NCON4 of the East Dorset Local Plan. 10 The application proposes only 36% affordable housing which falls short of the 40% required. It also contains no mechanism for ensuring that the affordable housing can be secured, nor has there been any agreement secured with a particular housing association or recognised social landlord. Furthermore the design of the affordable blocks of flats, which do not incorporate lifts, is likely to preclude them from adoption. As such, there is no guarantee that the affordable housing proposed would not be open market housing and is therefore clearly contrary to Policy HODEV5 of the East Dorset Local Plan and fails to provide a mechanism for securing Affordable housing as outlined in the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 28 'Affordable and Special Needs Housing and the Provision of Small Dwellings' December 2005. 8 The proposed Flood Risk Assessment contains an unsatisfactory sequential approach to locating development within the site. As a result, the proposed development layout still includes four residential blocks partly within the existing Flood Zone 2. Given that much of the site lies within Flood Zone 1, all proposed new buildings could be sited within this zone because it is the area at lowest risk of flooding. The sequential test should be passed before the exception test is considered; and therefore the proposal fails to comply with advice contained within paragraph 2.32 of PPS25: Development and Flood Risk. 9 The proposal lies more than 400m but less than 5km from a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest of international importance. It is close to several SSSIs, which are also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area), Ramsar site and the Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of Conservation), the closest of which are Corfe and Barrow Hills, Canford Heath and Holt and West Moors Heaths.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 Habitat Regulations 1994, in particular Regulations 48 and 49. The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the proposal will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland. It is considered that the proposed development would in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to heathland, be likely to have a significant effect on the SPA and SAC features. On the advice of Natural England, the most appropriate way of avoiding further adverse urban pressures on the European sites would be through the implementation of a comprehensive package 11 The environmental statement, in connection with contaminated land, submitted with the application, fails to meet current requirements for a risk assessment, and the proposed methodology for remediation is not shown to be linked to an adequate assessment of the data. The suggested remediation is minimal and proposes an insufficient depth of cover for garden areas, to prevent problems with installation of fence posts or plant uptake from the ground contaminants. Furthermore the investigation into ground gas is inadequate and fails to provide a sufficient appraisal of remediation options. As such the proposal fails to comply with Policy DES2 of the East Dorset Local Plan and Annex 2 of PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control. 12 The poor design, with regard to renewable energy provision, prohibits the scheme from meeting sustainability criteria. The proposal fails to provide at least 10% of the energy to be used in this development to come from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy RE5 of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy which, before targets are set in Development Plan Documents, requires such facilities to be used in new developments proposing more than 10 dwellings. The following Informative Notes are drawn to Applicants attention: 1 In addition to the policies listed below, in reaching this decision the Council has had 25
egard to national policies, namely Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk and regional policies, namely policies ES3, H2 and RE5 of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, together with the Dorset (excluding South East Dorset) Local Transport Plan and East Dorset Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 28: ‘Affordable and Special Needs Housing and the Provision of Small Dwellings’ Signed Decision Date: 4 March 2009 Chief Executive POLICY CONSIDERATIONS In reaching this decision the policies in the Development Plan for the area, which currently comprises the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan 2000 and the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, were taken into account. This includes specifically the following policies: HODEV1 HODEV2 HODEV5 NCON4 WENV4 DES2 DES5 DES6 DES7 DES8 DES9 DES10 DES11 RCDEV2 TEDEV3 LTDEV1 TRANS2 TRAB ENA ENB ENC END ENH ENI . authority by you or your agent, together with the completed appeal form and information you submit to the Planning Inspectorate. Please ensure that you only provide information, including personal information belonging to you that you are happy will be made available to others in this way. If you supply personal information belonging to a third party please ensure you have their permission to do so. More detailed information about data protection and privacy matters is available on the Planning Portal. The First Secretary of State has the power to allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but he will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of the appeal. The First Secretary of State is not required to entertain an appeal if it seems to him that the Local Planning Authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development, or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, and the provisions of Sections 70 and 72(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If the Local Planning Authority of the First Secretary of State refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by carrying out of any development which has or would be permitted, they may serve a purchase notice on the District Council in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council to purchase their interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In certain circumstances a claim for compensation may be made against the Local Planning Authority where permission is refused or granted subject to conditions by the First Secretary of State on appeal or on reference of the application to him. The circumstances in which compensation is payable are set out in Section 114 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. NOTES TO APPLICANT If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse permission for the proposed development, or to grant it subject to conditions, then they may appeal to the First Secretary of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If you want to appeal then you must do so within 6 months of the date of this notice. To do so you must use a form which is available from the Planning Inspectorate, Room 301 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN. The Planning Inspectorate has introduced an online appeals service which you can use to make your appeal online. You can find the service through the Appeals area of the Planning Portal – see www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs. The Inspectorate will publish details of your appeal on the internet (on the Appeals area of the Planning Portal). This may include a copy of the original planning application form and relevant supporting documents supplied to the local planning 26
Page 1 and 2: Development Brief for the riverside
Page 3 and 4: Development Brief for the riverside
Page 5 and 6: Photograph showing the views southw
Page 7 and 8: 2.4 Immediately to the south of the
Page 9 and 10: Figure 4: Trees & flooding Trees 2.
Page 11 and 12: • a water vole and otter survey o
Page 13 and 14: Photograph showing the view south e
Page 15 and 16: • the use of on-street parking an
Page 17 and 18: onto a footpath. ‘Nose-on’ park
Page 19 and 20: Photograph showing people enjoying
Page 21 and 22: Photograph of the southerly view fr
Page 23 and 24: Photograph showing the Canford Brid
Page 25: Appendix A - East Dorset District C
Page 30 and 31: Appendix C - East Dorset District C
Page 32 and 33: Features of the indicative layout p
Page 34 and 35: Indicative site capacity Figure D6:
Page 36 and 37: Vic Hickman, Dorset Police Architec
Page 38: Environment Agency Thank you for th

Appendix 1 - Development Brief

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?