schedule of planning applications

Everyone 7 128 2187 rep_agd_ID Draft 3 Chief Executives 0 0 

Decision Contributors 

Contact Officer 

rep_exe_IDsNo No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 10/01/2012 09:30:32 Chief Executive Old 80 1 Chief Executive 

PLANNING COMMITTEE 10th January, 2012 

Agenda Item 6 

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS 

1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Public Report 

Purpose of Report: 

Recommendations: 

Lead Members: 

Contact Officer: 

To consider the planning applications contained within the 

schedule and to receive details of any withdrawn or 

requested deferred application, if any. 

It is RECOMMENDED that: 

the applications contained in this schedule be 

determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with 

the Development Manager's recommendation. 

Councillor S. Tong (Environment) 

Neil Lancaster, Development Control Manager 

2. APPLICATION SCHEDULE 

No. Application No. Site Address Pg. 

1. 3/11/0831/COU Pilmoor, Holt, Wimborne 2 

2. 3/11/0928/HOU 15 Hornbeam Way, Colehill, Wimborne 7 

3. 3/11/0996/HOU 41 Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 16 

4. 3/11/1126/HOU 36 Jubilee Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 20 

5. 3/11/1158/HOU 36 Erica Drive, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne 21 

1

Item Number: 1. Ref: 3/11/0831/COU 

Proposal: 

Site Address: 

Constraints 

Change of use of land and buildings to a mixed use of 

agriculture and landscaping / tree surgery business as 

amended by plan rec'd 28 October 2011 

Pilmoor, Holt, Wimborne, for Mr D Upton 

Area of Great Landscape Value LP Bournemouth 

International Airport Green Belt LP Heathland 5km or 

400m Consultation Area 

Site Notice expired: 13 October 2011 

Advert expired: 

Nbr-Nfn expired: 7 October 2011 

Holt Parish Council 

Comments: 

Consultee Responses: 

County Highways 

Development Liaison Officer 

Objection on planning grounds stated below: 

There is insufficient information supporting this 

application and no business case provided. There is 

no information regarding the applicant's intentions. 

The applicant is claiming ownership of the driveway 

and bridleway which is invalid. The applicant does not 

own either. The applicant only has right of way over 

the drive. We are concerned about the noise 

generated and impact on the close neighbours. We 

are also concerned with pollution of the stream, 

storage of hardcore on an agricultural field which is 

not included in the description. This application is for 

an industrial process in a rural location and we have 

no reason to change our mind since the last 

application. 

No objection 

Neighbour Comments: 

Peter & Rosina Kentish 

"Whispering Pines", 

Woodhuish 

Concern 

We do not oppose the use of land by Mr Daniel Upton 

for horticulture and agriculture purposes, what we do 

oppose is use of industrial machinery, ie industrial 

chipper which has very high noise levels and 

container lorries using the site for his wood chipping 

business. 

We hope that this application is not a back door to the 

above use, taking note that the area is rural and green 

belt. 

2

K Anderson Oaktree Hollow, 

Woodhuish 

Mrs Judy Treliving 

Nightingales, Pilmoor 

Mr J King Marim, Pilmoor 

Object 

We are very concerned about the noise, fumes and 

safety aspect from the use of the large commercial 

lorries and tractors using the bridle track to access the 

field. In recent months we have experienced 

unreasonable levels of noise from the wood chipping 

machine and had to tolerate smoky fires burning for 

days. 

We also notice that the large greenbelt field next to 

the 3 polytunnels still has hardcore standing all over it, 

also piles of building rubble. 

Question whether the other existing greenfield sites 

could also be mixed use if permission is granted. 

Object 

1) The noise factor from the chipper machine. 

2) Loud Bleeps from reversing machinery and lorries. 

3) Electric saw noise. 

4) Fires and smoke from the site. 

5) Is the site to be used out of normal hours and 

weekends 

6) Heavy lorries and trucks in and out of the site, 

which is through Holt's winding lanes to reach Pilmore. 

7) The access to the working field is across a 

National Trust Bridle Way which already has had a 

hardcore base across it and a large hard standing 

area through two large gates in a hedge. The Bridle 

Way is used by horse riders and walkers. 

8) The area is becoming industrialised. 

9) This quiet, Green Belt corner of Holt is changing. 

Concern 

With the close proximity of our bungalow, and that of 

my elderly mother at Primrose Cottage, we are 

worried that the application will allow the heavy 

industrial type machinery to be used on the site. We 

have had experience of chipping being done in the 

past and the noise level is intolerable. 

Officers Report: 

Members will recall that this application originally came before the Planning 

Committee on the 1 November 2011. Following discussion Members resolved to 

defer the application to seek further information from the applicant, namely: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

What businesses currently operate from the site and who owns them 

The nature of the activities which are being undertaken (Members wished to 

establish the total mix and balance of activities), and 

Is there a business plan indicating future intentions If not, Members would like 

to be aware of how this site might develop. 

3

In response to these questions the applicants Agent has responded thus; 

"We are writing to confirm that the fundamental use of the site is agriculture, 

comprising the growing of plants, shrubs and trees. This business is carried out by 

Mr Upton as a sole trader. The business uses most of the site including all of the 

growing houses and also generates most income on the holding. 

The tree surgery/forestry and landscaping businesses of Daniel C Upton and Upton 

Tree Services Ltd both operate from the site in accordance with a previous change of 

use. However, those businesses only use small areas of the nursery compared to 

what had been envisaged when planning permission was granted. This is due to poor 

economic climate that has resulted in both of these businesses being downsized. 

The farm office is used by Daniel C Upton Ltd and Upton Tree Services Ltd, but it is 

also the registered address of Southern Wood Energy Limited which is the forestry 

side of the business producing landscape products and wood fuel. The wood fuel is 

produced at a site near Blandford Forum. 

You will appreciate that there is considerable integration between the various 

businesses operating from the site, which provide tree care and forestry services 

together with landscaping using plants, shrubs and trees grown on the site. Residues 

from the nursery and the tree surgery/forestry business are recycled for use in the 

landscaping business or used for compost at the nursery, or to provide heating. 

There is no clear business plan for the site due to business still evolving. 

Furthermore the applicant is still exploring business opportunities as they present 

themselves. However the main use of the site is for the growing of plants both in 

terms of area used and turnover, and this situation is unlikely to change over the next 

few years. 

Regarding comments in your third paragraph we can confirm that pellets are not, nor 

have ever been, manufactured on site and you are already aware that Mr Upton is 

taking steps to regularise the planning situation regarding the storage of logs. 

We trust that this additional information will be sufficient for members of the Planning 

Committee to determine the planning application before them, which is simply trying 

to regularise the situation that actually exists on the ground". 

The proposal 

In effect this application seeks to regularise the existing mixture of uses which are 

taking place on this site, namely a tree surgery business and the horticultural use of 

the existing glasshouses. When planning permission was granted for Daniel Upton to 

relocate his landscaping/tree surgery business to this site under reference 3/07/1592 

on 29 February 2008 it was not anticipated that the then redundant glasshouses 

would be put to horticultural uses. However, they are now being fully utilised for 

growing bedding plants. This proposal is, therefore, not contentious in this respect. 

Planning permission was granted under reference 3/09/0349 on 13 August 2009 to 

extend a track and store woodchip. 

4

An application to erect an agricultural building and construct a hardstanding 

(3/11/0486) was refused planning permission on 22 June 2011. The impact of the 

proposed uses on local amenities was taken into account. That new building and the 

hardstanding do not form part of the current application. 

The concerns which are being expressed by local residents relate mainly to a wood 

chipping activity which is currently being monitored by the enforcement section in 

order to assess whether there is a breach of planning control. 

The Parish Council refer to an industrial process which does not form part of this 

submission. 

There is a favourable recommendation with the conditions imposed on the two 

previous permissions repeated. 

Recommendation: 

GRANT – SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):- 

Conditions/Reasons:- 

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the 

following approved plans : three location plans and a letter dated 7 September 

2011. 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 

2 The use hereby permitted shall be restricted to a mixed use of agriculture and a 

landscaping/tree surgery business. 

Reason: To ensure the activity is appropriate to this rural location. 

3 Outside storage shall only take place as shown on the plans hereby approved. 

Reason: To ensure the use is carried out without detriment to the character of 

this rural area. 

4 The outside parking of employees vehicles shall only take place in the area 

marked "J" on the plans hereby approved. 

Reason: To reduce the impact on the character of the area. 

5 Machinery shall be stored in the buildings marked "D" on the plans hereby 

approved and machinery shall not be stored in the open. 

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area. 

6 The use shall only be undertaken by Mr D Upton and the use shall cease should 

Mr D Upton not reside in the dwelling at the premises. 

Reason: Permission is only granted taking into account the specific needs of the 

applicant's business. 

5

7 The activities in connection with the tree surgery business shall only be carried 

out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays and Fridays, other than on 

Bank or Public Holidays. 

Reason: To maintain the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings. 

8 Within two months of the date of this permission details shall be submitted to, 

and approved by, the local planning authority of the height to which any materials 

will be stored on the site and the use shall be undertaken in accordance with 

these details. 

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area. 

9 The woodchip shall not be stored to a height which exceeds the height of the 

eaves of the adjacent glasshouse. 

Reason: To reduce the impact on the appearance and character of this attractive 

area of countryside. 

Informatives: 

1 The permission hereby granted must be undertaken without any detriment to the 

users of bridleway No.24 which runs through the site. 

2 In determining this application the local planning authority has taken into account 

the guidance set out by the Government in Planning Policy Statements 1 and 7 

and Planning Policy Guidance Note 2. 

Policy Considerations and Reasons 

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, were taken into account. This includes specifically the 

following policies: CSIDE1 DES8 LSCON2 

6

Item Number: 2. Ref: 3/11/0928/HOU 

Proposal: 

Site Address: 

Constraints 

Erect Extension to Bungalow as amended by plans rec'd 

7.11.11 to Lower Floor Level of Extension 

15 Hornbeam Way, Colehill, Wimborne, for Mr M King 

Bournemouth International Airport Historic Contaminated 

Land Heathland 5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS 

Technical Sites Urban Areas LP 

Site Notice expired: 22 October 2011 


Nbr-Nfn expired: 13 October 2011 

Colehill Parish Council 

Comments: 

Colehill Parish Council 

Comments to amended 

plans: 

Objection 

Inappropriate development for the area. Serious 

detriment to neighbour. 

Comments need only be reported to Committee if the 

Officer's recommendation is at variance to the above. 

Comments re amended plans: 

Object 

Out of keeping with neighbouring property. 

Support objections from neighbours. 

Contrary to planning policy DES8. 

We would like this to go to Committee is officer's 

recommendation is at variance. 




I have No Objection, subject to the following condition: 

The development hereby permitted shall not be 

commenced until the access, turning and parking 

shown on Dwg No P04 received on 20 September 

2011 has been constructed. Thereafter, the access, 

turning and parking areas shall be maintained, kept 

free from obstruction and available for the purposes 

specified. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 


Ms Carol Butter 17 

Hornbeam Way, Colehill 

Final comments received 15.11.11: 

Thank you for your letter of 9th November regarding 

the above. Whilst I acknowledge the letter from Mr 

Hanham regarding the amended plans, the approach 

suggests in some way that a replication of a forward 

extension, as if it were a copy of my home, is 

satisfactory. 

7

This, however firstly denies that the estate was laid 

out under modern planning concepts and is not the 

result of a piecemeal approach. As laid out the 

relationship is a sensitive one, as proposed it is 

insensitive in the extreme as the proposal is hard on 

the common boundary. It is all very well explaining 

that the adjoining window is 4.7 metres distant, but Mr 

Hanham ignores that all bar 350mm is my garden so 

effectively the proposal relies entirely on my garden 

for its neighbourliness in his view; it is effectively 

annexing my land and reducing my living space. 

Second, by solely concentrating on one window he 

ignores that the levels of the land differ, which 

accentuates the problem with the development 

generally, and last and in any event the test of 

acceptability has to be that set out in policy DES 8 of 

the East Dorset Local Plan, which requires a scheme 

"to be compatible with or improve their surroundings" 

and not some other partial assessment as suggested. 

You will note that the amended drawings do not show 

the roof overhang accurately as no gutter is shown. In 

practice the roof edge will be right on the common 

boundary. The drawings require a larger scale detail 

and correction to properly ascertain this impact and 

any potential overhang over my land. It also seems 

illogical to face the wall on the common boundary in 

render, it should be brick to reflect my home; the 

applicant will not see it! 

My overall concerns, as covered in my letter of 13th 

October have not been satisfactorily addressed. The 

scheme remains a very large forward extension 

producing a dominant building on the boundary in a 

manner that is, in essence, un-neighbourly. I 

appreciate that there has been an attempt to reduce 

this by slightly reducing the height, but it is still a large 

building the impact of which will be detrimental and 

inescapable. 

Therefore my strong objection to the above planning 

application remains and for completeness I reiterate 

my points below. 

I am the owner of No 17 Hornbeam Way, which from 

the road, lies immediately to the right hand side of No 

15. I have lived here for 15 years and consider the 

proposed development to be excessively 

overpowering, obtrusive and bulky in appearance, and 

will take a large amount of daylight from my 

8

southwesterly rooms. I feel that the proposed 

development is out of character with the surrounding 

bungalows and existing street scene and in practice 

will radically impair my visual amenity. 

The rooms on this side of my bungalow are my main 

habitable space: namely the bedroom, which I also 

use as a study for work, study and sewing, the lounge, 

the main entrance and hall. All will suffer a significant 

loss of sunlight caused by the proposed two-storey 

extension. I also object to the loss of natural sunlight 

and daylight currently enjoyed in my hall, which 

provides borrowed light throughout the centre of the 

home and into my kitchen. Please find enclosed a 

series of photos demonstrating the impact on my 

property and my life, in particular the shadow that the 

extension will create on my living accommodation and 

the radical change to my outlook which will be 

transformed from a pleasant open street scene and 

skyline to a stark wall and roof. 

The proposed window on my side of the extension is 

there because the building is so large that it 

necessitates a corridor. The window is objectionable 

and potentially affects my privacy. (Without prejudice 

to this point of principle, should planning permission 

be agreed, can it be made conditional that the window 

remains non-opening and obscured for perpetuity) 

I enclose a photo of the existing hedgerow, which is 

trimmed regularly to its existing height. I consider that 

the current application drawings are misleading in 

relation to the hedge and once the correct height of 

the right side elevation is drawn as reflected in 

Section AA, the existing hedgerow will be seen to be 

much lower than the bulk of the proposed extension to 

the neighbour's dwelling. The hedgerow, which is 

approximately 30 years old, is on my land and a 

feature of my front garden. It will be threatened by the 

development, as the excavation may kill the roots and 

in any event as the remaining hedge will receive little 

light and will be in the 'rain shadow' area tucked under 

the proposed eaves and gutter, it will certainly die. 

This will make my outlook even worse, essentially a 

wall and roof along almost the full extent of my 

boundary with a window in the wall. 

I do not believe the plans accurately reflect the void 

that will be created against my boundary, due to the 

substantial difference in levels it will need a retaining 

wall and no solution appears to have been designed 

9

as part of the proposal. I would expect that perhaps 

the new wall of the extension will be a retaining wall 

and the void will be back-filled but that is not shown 

on the drawings. If this were to be the case the wall 

may be significantly thicker which will either reduce 

the internal space or bring the whole scheme even 

closer to the common boundary. 

I also note a fence has been drawn on the plans along 

the full extent of the boundary, apart from a small 

section near the public pathway, this fence does not 

exist. I do not understand how this can be supported 

structurally over much of its length and on who's land 

it will be built. If it is a proposed fence and not a 

mistake on the drawing, then what is its function I 

can only assume this is a weak attempt to deal with 

the void between my garden and the extension to stop 

anyone in my garden falling, for it is not needed 

otherwise. It will of course successfully prevent the 

applicant or subsequent owners being able to 

maintain the proposal from within their own land and 

will require access to my land. 

In view of the above, and having re-read the relevant 

section of the current East Dorset Local Plan, I remain 

firmly of the view that the application will conflict with 

Policy DES8 of this approved planning document. I 

have raised my objections with the Parish Council and 

with my East Dorset District ward councillor. 

I trust that the Planning Committee will consider my 

objections sympathetically and refuse the application. 

Mr & Mrs D C Saint 26 


Object 

I refer to the above application regarding 15 

Hornbeam Way. Our property is located opposite 

number 15 at 26 Hornbeam Way. We believe the 

proposed extension will be at such an elevation that it 

will overlook our bungalow and deplete our privacy. 

If this extension is allowed to proceed, we would ask 

that one of the conditions should be that the large 

living room window above the garage retains the 

georgian style as shown on the submitted plans. We 

would not want a big picture window looking down on 

the rooms at the front of our bungalow. 

Further comments received 22.11.11 re amended 

plans as follows: 

Our original comments still apply. 

10

Mr & Mrs M C Freer 9 


Object 

Summary of letter 

Concerns initially about the property being extended 

forward. Other properties have been extended 

sideways and into the rear gardens but not to our 

belief, forwards. A conservatory seems to have 

already been added to the property at the rear of 

number 15 at an earlier stage. The new plans do not 

seem to meet the design, appearance and layout to 

en sure that the proposed extension is in keeping with 

the current buildings. 

Further concerns regarding drains. The drains of 

Hornbeam Way properties do not go straight out to 

the sewers - they pass through the adjacent 

properties. Two incidents have occurred in the past. 

Property failed a drain survey. Some work was carried 

out but a few years later there were further problems 

from excess waste from the drains coming from No.11 

and possibly other properties. Extensive work was 

needed to be carried out which included the removal 

of part of the garden of No.7 in order to gain access to 

No.9's drainage. We agreed to have an extra manhole 

in the garden to make future access easier. 

No further problems but plans for No.15 indicate an 

additional bathroom and an extended kitchen which 

may increase usage of drain system and a conversion 

to a 3 bedroom property indicates possibility of extra 

people. Problem of drains now been taken over by 

Wessex Water but again concerned about lack of 

information regarding access by Wessex Water. 

Tree in front garden of No.15, at present we can see 

little of existing garage and lawn due to hedge of 

No.11 and tree. Will this tree still exist or is it part of 

driveway area 

Impact of construction work - large amount of soil will 

need to be removed which could cause a problem. 

Concerned about effect on existing road which is 

wearing out. Will any repairs be carried out if further 

wear and tear occurs 

Our Advisor was sceptical that this was an extension - 

it does appear to be a conversion to a two-storey 

property. Our advisor seemed concerned about the 

accuracy of the scale of the plans. 

Further letter received 18.11.11 summarised below: 

The revised application does not address some of the 

points raised in our previous letter. 

The drains of Hornbeam Way properties do not go 

straight out to the sewers - they pass through the 

adjacent properties. Two drain problem incidents 

11

have occurred in the past. The plans for No.15 

indicate an additional bathroom and an extended 

kitchen which may increase the usage of the drain 

system and a conversion to a 3 bedroom property 

indicates the possibility of extra people. It is noted 

that the drains are still at the back of the property. 

The problem of drains has now been taken over by 

Wessex Water. 

'Non-material considerations' include the impact of 

construction work - our advisor believes that a large 

amount of soil will need to be removed which could 

cause a problem. If the revised plans are to include a 

2 feet reduction in the height of the proposed 

extension - will more soil be removed This is unclear 

especially as the existing garage and entrance are at 

ground level already. Perhaps the plans are not 

drawn to scale, the change in the revised plans is 

difficult to detect. 

We are also worried about the effect on the existing 

road which is wearing out. Will any repairs be carried 

out if further wear and tear occurs due to the building 

of a large extension The work will be very near a 

turning in the road which leads to further housing in 

Hornbeam Way. The remainder of the road is narrow. 

There is a large tree in the front garden of No.15 

which was used by Greenfinches. Will this tree still 

exist or is it part of the driveway area Some work 

was carried out on the hedges etc. recently, at the 

moment the trees and hedges in the front are intact 

but it does not seem feasible that they will remain if 

the plans are approved. 

If the plans are approved, we request that they are 

implemented with close supervision by the owners - 

we understand that they are not living at No.15 at 

present. 

We again wish to suggest strongly that the proposed 

extension and the internal plans are not in keeping 

with the layout of the surrounding properties. 


This application comes to Committee as the Officer recommendation is finely 

balanced and the Parish Council has objected. There have also been letters of 

objection from the occupants of three adjacent properties. 

The plans were amended on the 7th November 2011 to reduce the eaves and ridge 

height of the extension, and the eaves are now proposed to be at the same level as 

those of the bungalow at 17 Hornbeam Way, and lower than the parent property. 

This will be achieved by cutting the extension into the ground. The original plans 

showed the ridge of the extension at the same height as the existing ridge. 

12

The application includes a negative bat survey and therefore the proposal accords 

with the Dorset Bat Protocol and no adverse impact on bats is foreseen. 

The proposal is for an extension to the front of this detached bungalow. It will project 

by 9.3m, span 5.9m and project 300mm beyond the front elevation of 17 Hornbeam 

Way. The extension has a fully hipped roof and will be single storey where it abuts 

the main dwelling, and two storey for approximately half its projection. Living 

accommodation will be provided on the upper floor with a double garage below. 

The extension will be set back from the side elevation of the existing bungalow, and 

this will position the east wall of the extension 500mm further into the site from the 

existing east gable wall, away from the site’s boundary with 17 Hornbeam Way. 

The existing dwelling is built at a higher level than Hornbeam Way, and there is a 

single flat roofed garage forward of the dwelling which joins an elevated grassed area 

which is next to the front of the dwelling. 

The floor level of the application dwelling appears to be similar to that of the 

bungalow at 17 Hornbeam Way to the east, and ground levels rise into the site from 

the road. 

The main issues are considered to be the impact on the character and appearance of 

the immediate area and the impact on the occupants of adjacent dwellings. 

Impact on the character and appearance of the immediate area 

There is a mixed character of development in the immediate area, with a variety of 

different styles and scales of dwellings, positioned at varying distances from the road. 

The proposed extension will not project significantly forward of 17 Hornbeam Way, 

and not as far as the dwelling at 9 Hornbeam Way. There is a substantial projection 

from the existing dwelling, and this is not a characteristic of dwellings in the 

immediate area. However, the area has a mixed character and the impact on the 

street scene is unlikely to be significant. 

Impact on the occupants of adjacent dwellings 

The extension will be constructed in close proximity to the boundary with 17 

Hornbeam Way, and will have an adverse impact on the occupants of this property. 

There seem to be two other properties that are affected by the proposal, being 11 

and 26 Hornbeam Way. 

The relationship between the extension and No.26 is considered acceptable and no 

significant overlooking of this dwelling is anticipated, given the 22 metre separation 

distance between the front elevation of the extension and the front (north) of No.26. 

This degree of window to window overlooking is acceptable in planning terms. 

The bulk of the extension is located away from the site’s boundary with No.11, and 

the new access steps adjacent to it should not interfere with the hedge, given the 

distance they are from it. Therefore it is reasonable to expect the hedge to be 

13

etained. The impact on the outlook from No.11 is not expected to be significant, 

given the hedge and distance between the nearest part of the extension and the 

site’s boundary with this property. 

Three windows in the extension will face this boundary, and look into the existing 

hedge. The front garden of No.11 lies to the west of the hedge, with a private garden 

serving the dwelling at the rear (north). It does not appear that the windows are likely 

to overlook this front garden, given the presence of the hedge. However, as a front 

garden, a high level of privacy cannot be guaranteed, especially as the rear garden 

has an adequate level of privacy. 

The extension will have the most impact on 17 Hornbeam Way. Its east wall will be 

sited 5m from the west wall at No.17, with eaves and guttering closer. 

The west wall of No.17 has two windows and a glazed door, and these have an 

outlook onto the side elevation of the application dwelling, and the existing garage. 

One of these windows serves a study (which may also be used as a bedroom and is 

the only window to this room), and the other is a large window to a living room (with a 

secondary window at the rear). The door is fully glazed with a full height glazed 

panel next to it, and is the main door to the property providing natural light into the 

hallway. 

The extension will reduce natural light to these openings, given its height and 

proximity, and also significantly impact upon the outlook from them. To enable an 

objective view to be taken on the potential loss of light, regard was had to the advice 

set out in Building Research Establishment: Site layout planning for daylight, a guide 

to good practice by P J Littlefair. 

This document advises on the safeguarding of daylight to nearby buildings, and 

considers that diffuse daylight enjoyed by buildings adjoining new development can 

be preserved by a simple test. This involves finding the central point of each window 

facing the development on a scale plan and then drawing a horizontal line from this 

point to the new development. 

An angle of 25 degrees is then plotted and a line drawn on this bearing. If the 

proposed development does not rise above the 25 degree line, then it is unlikely to 

have a substantial effect on the diffuse light enjoyed by the existing building. The 

document advises that windows to circulation areas (such as hallways/corridors) 

need not be analysed. 

Having applied this test to the proposal, it transpires that the extension is unlikely to 

have a substantial impact on natural light reaching the windows. 

Currently, the outlook from the living room window is predominately of the side gable 

ended elevation of the application dwelling, and it is fair to say this has a restricted 

outlook accordingly. However, given the height, projection and proximity of the 

extension, outlook will be severely impacted upon and therefore may be given weight 

in the planning assessment. 

14

The outlook from the current study (although this room could readily be used as a 

bedroom) is onto the side wall and railings of the existing garage and the existing tall 

coniferous hedge on the site’s boundary. The top of this hedge appears to be 

approximately 800mm below the eaves of the application dwelling, and the hedge 

extends for about 5 metres from the rear of No.15. The remaining outlook is onto the 

wall of the garage with railings on top of it, and this allows views of the sky above the 

garage and hedge from the study window, giving a reasonable outlook for this room. 

The extension will effectively remove any views of the sky from this window and 

result in a significant impact on the outlook from this room, and it is considered that 

the impact would be significant enough to warrant withholding planning permission 

on this aspect. 

For these reasons the proposal is considered contrary to Policy DES8 of the East 

Dorset Local Plan 2002, as it is incompatible with its surroundings in terms of scale, 

bulk and height in terms of its relationship to nearby properties. 

The extension will permit a reasonable gap between No. 15 and No.17, and given the 

hipped roof design and distance between the extension and No.17, it is not 

considered that this would result in a tunnelling effect that would be detrimental to 

personal security of the occupants of No.17. However, the close proximity, projection 

and height will present an overbearing impact to the occupants of No.17, and the 

proposal is contrary to Policy DES8 of the EDLP as a result. 

Members are advised that this is a finely weighted judgement and consequently the 

recommendation of refusal is made on balance. 


REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):- 

Reasons:- 

1 The proposed extension, on account of its projection, height and proximity to the 

dwelling at 17 Hornbean Way, will have an overbearing impact causing 

significant loss of outlook to the windows of habitable rooms facing the 

application site at 17 Hornbeam Way. For these reasons the proposal is contrary 

to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, as it is incompatible with its 

surroundings in terms of scale, bulk and height in terms of its relationship to 

nearby properties. 

Informatives: 

1 In the determination of the application, regard was had to the advice set out in 

the Building Research Establishment (BRE) publication: Site Layout Planning for 

Daylight and Sunlight - a Good Practice Guide by P J Littlefair. 

2 The applicant(s) is (are) advised that the proposed development is situated in 

close proximity to the property boundary and "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996" is 

therefore likely to apply. An explanatory booklet relating to this Act is available 

free of charge from The DoE Publications Despatch Centre, Blackhorse Road, 

London SE99 6TT. Tel 0181 691 9191 (fax 0181 694 0099). Alternatively, 

15

copies of the booklet may be available from the District Council (subject to 

availability). 





following policies: DES8 DES10 


Proposal: 

Site Address: 

Constraints 

Raise Roof Over Existing Dwelling by 1400mm With Two 

Storey Extensions at Sides (S) and (N) With Dormer 

Windows on Front (W) (Revision to Planning Permission 

3/11/0589/HOU) 

41 Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr L Findlay 

Bournemouth International Airport Heathland 5km 

Consultation Area Green Belt LP Groundwater Source 

Protection Zone Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 

5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites 

Urban Areas LP 

Site Notice expired: 13 November 2011 


Nbr-Nfn expired: 9 November 2011 

Corfe Mullen Parish 

Council Comments: 

No objection 



Mr Matthew Downer 163 

Hillside Road, Corfe Mullen 

Mr Julian Vernon 157 


Object to the proposal due to overbearing impact due 

to height and bulk and close proximity to boundary. 

This is particularly relevant to the houses that have 

been granted Planning Permission at 163 Hillside 

Road. 

Object 

My concern is that this property is further up the hill 

than our house - extending it as planned will dominate 

our outlook and overlook our property. The scale of 

the development seems too much for the site. 

16

P & L Whitehead 165 


Object 

We object to the nearness of the foundations of the 

extension (virtually on our boundary) and the 

overbearing aspect of the height of the new build. 

We are also concerned about the proximity of the 

foundations already dug and filled, to those of our 

garage and hope that ours are not compromised by 

them being within three metres. We assumed that you 

took this into consideration when passing the original 

application. 


This application comes to Committee as one of the objectors is a member of staff at 

the Council. The Officer recommendation is for refusal and the Parish Council has 

not objected. Two other objections have been received from adjacent properties. 

Members may recall a similar application that was approved at committee in 

September this year (Reference 3/11/0589/HOU). This was for the same 

development, with the exception of the proposed cropped hip roof over the previously 

approved double garage at the side (north) of the application dwelling. 

Therefore, the proposal now for consideration is to raise the ridge of the existing 

bungalow by 1400mm (as previously agreed) and construct a new fully gabled roof 

with cropped hip two storey extension on the south elevation. A new two storey crop 

hipped roof attached garage extension is also proposed on the north elevation (in lieu 

of the previously approved single storey attached flat roofed double garage). The 

development will provide a new first floor in the dwelling and its extensions which will 

provide additional living accommodation. 

The main impacts are on the character of the immediate area and on the occupants 

of the adjacent dwellings at 165, 163, 159 and 157 Hillside Rd. There is also the 

impact on the extant planning permission 3/11/0348 for two detached houses at 163 

Hillside Rd to consider, which is an important material consideration. 

A glazed gable is proposed on the front (west) elevation facing Brook Lane, together 

with two gabled dormer windows, and three roof lights. The top section of the (east) 

gable will be glazed (sill at 2100mm above floor level) and no other first floor 

windows are proposed on this elevation. 

Given the high sill of the glazing in this gable, no adverse overlooking of 163 Hillside 

Rd or the two dwellings benefiting from the extant planning permission at 163 is 

expected. A narrow high level window is shown to serve the ground floor of the 

attached garage, and given the sill height, no significant overlooking is foreseen from 

this. 

The distance between the application dwelling and 157 and 159 Hillside Road, and 

the design employed will prevent significant impact on the occupants of these 

properties. 

17

The character of the immediate area is mixed, with two storey houses at 157, 159 

and 165 Hillside Road, and a bungalow with accommodation in its roof at 163 Hillside 

Rd. The application dwelling is currently a bungalow with no first floor 

accommodation. 

The principle of a chalet bungalow (which will result from the proposal) is considered 

to be compatible with the character of the immediate area. However the addition of 

the roof over the garage so close to the site’s north boundary will result in a cramped 

form of development, which is incompatible with the street scene in the immediate 

area. 

Ground levels fall into the application site from 163 Hillside Road to the east, and the 

application dwelling is appreciably lower than the dwelling at 163 Hillside Rd, which 

will provide some mitigation against the impact from the ridge height increase. 

However, whereas the previous proposal was deemed acceptable in terms of its 

impact on 163 and 165 Hillside Road, the addition of the roof over the garage will 

cumulate in a lengthy two storey elevation adjacent and in close proximity to the 

boundary with 163 Hillside Road. This will have an overbearing effect on the 

amenities of the occupants of163, and also on the outlook from the rear of the most 

northerly dwelling of the extant planning permission at this site. 

The proposal’s relationship with 165 Hillside Road is considered unacceptable, as it 

will result in a 6.5m tall two storey cropped gable close to the boundary of this 

property. The existing boundary here is formed by a 2500mm tall (approx.) hedge, 

but the new gable will rise significantly above this and will have an overbearing 

impact on the amenities of the occupants of 165. 

The extension to the south elevation will project 3600mm from the application 

dwelling and it will be adjacent to the boundary with 163 Hillside Road. The drop in 

levels together with the design to crop and pitch the roof away from this boundary will 

ensure that any loss of light and general impact on 163 is kept to an acceptable level, 

and this was deemed appropriate under the previous application. 

Members may recall granting planning permission for the demolition of the dwelling 

at No.163 and its replacement with two detached houses in May 2011. These 

dwellings 'borrow' much of their rear outlook from the application site, and have a 

limited first floor outlook on account of the high level windows in their rear elevations 

needed to prevent overlooking of the application site. 

The length, height, bulk and close proximity of the extensions to the boundary with 

163 will result in an adverse impact on the outlook from the ground floor windows in 

the rear (west) elevation of the most northerly dwelling approved under the extant 

permission. The reason for this being that these windows will face a length of roof 

which would be only in the region of 11.5 metres away, and the roof will exist along 

the whole of the rear boundary of this property, presenting an overbearing structure. 

For the above reasons the proposal is considered contrary to Policy DES8 of the 

East Dorset Local Plan 2002 as it will be incompatible with its surroundings in terms 

of its relationship with nearby properties, scale, bulk, height and visual impact. 

18

The application includes a negative Bat Check, therefore the requirements of the 

Dorset Bat Protocol have been satisfied. 


REFUSE – FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):- 

Reasons:- 

1 Residential development in the immediate area comprises detached dwellings, 

which for the most part have noticeable separation distances between them, 

giving the area a relatively spacious character. The proposed two storey 

extension to the north elevation, by reason of its height, bulk and close proximity 

to the site’s north boundary, will result in a cramped form of development, which 

will have an adverse impact on the street scene in the immediate area, and also 

the amenities of the occupants of 165 Hillside Road. Therefore the proposal is 

contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002, as it is incompatible 

with its surroundings in terms of its relationship with nearby properties. 

2 The proposal, on account of the length, height, bulk and close proximity of the 

extensions to the boundary with 163 Hillside Road, will give rise to an 

overbearing impact on the amenities of the occupants of this property. It will also 

result in an adverse impact on the outlook from the ground floor windows in the 

rear (west) elevation of the most northerly dwelling approved under extant 

Planning Permission 3/11/0348/FUL at this site, given that these windows will 

face an unbroken length of two storey development, which will be present along 

the whole of the rear boundary of this property, at a relatively close distance. 

This is considered to culminate in an overbearing structure. 

Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 

2002, as it will be incompatible with its surroundings in terms of its relationship 

with nearby properties. 

Informatives: 

1 For clarity, the refused plans represent Drawing No. 11.07.3 - Site Plans dated 

received 19.10.2011 and R Wilkinson Arch and Bldg Services Drawing No. 

11.07.04 - Proposed Plans and Elevations - Revised Scheme received 

10.10.2011. 





following policies: DES8 

19


Proposal: 

Site Address: 

Constraints 

Retain Dropped Kerb and Hardstanding 

36 Jubilee Road, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr Mervyn 

Young 

Bournemouth International Airport Groundwater Source 

Protection Zone Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 

5km or 400m Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites 

Urban Areas LP 

Site Notice expired: 17 December 2011 


Nbr-Nfn expired: 14 December 2011 






No objection 

The County Highways Authority has No Objections to 

make in respect of this planning application. 

Neighbour Comments: None 


This application comes to Committee as the applicant is a member of staff employed 

by the Council. 

The proposal is to retain a dropped kerb vehicle access together with single off-road 

parking space in front of this terraced house. The application is necessary as there 

was a condition imposed on the original planning permission for the dwelling (77/289) 

that requires the front areas of the properties to be maintained as grass. 

The access and hard standing area were formed in 2001 and there are other 

examples of parking at the front of dwellings in the immediate area. The proposal to 

retain the access and parking area is considered acceptable in visual and highway 

safety terms and respects Policy DES8 of the East Dorset Local Plan 2002. Dorset 

County Council Highways has not objected and approval is recommended. 


GRANT 

Informatives: 

1 As a retrospective application, this permission is granted in accordance with 

Section 63 (2) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

20





following policies: DES8 


Proposal: 

Site Address: 

Constraints 

Conversion of integral garage to form utility room and study, 

additional parking and garden storage/summer house. 

36 Erica Drive, Corfe Mullen, Wimborne, for Mr And Mrs J 

Holland 

Bournemouth International Airport Groundwater Source 

Protection Zone Groundwater Source Protection Zone 

Historic Contaminated Land Heathland 5km or 400m 

Consultation Area NATS Technical Sites Urban Areas LP 

Site Notice expired: 30 December 2011 


Nbr-Nfn expired: 27 December 2011 






To be reported 

No objection 

Neighbour Comments: None to date 


This application comes to Committee as the applicants are elected Members of East 

Dorset District Council. The Town Council has no objection to the proposal and no 

letters of objection have been received to date. 

The site is situated close to the head of a cul-de-sac and is on land that drops away 

sharply in a westerly direction down the site and thereby the detached property is 

single storey in the street scene but two storey on the rear elevation. It is a three 

bedroomed dwelling with integral garage. To the rear of the site is Henbury View First 

school. 

Proposal 

The application involves the conversion of the garage into a study with utility room 

behind. In addition a pitched roof summer house and store are proposed at the 

bottom of the rear garden. The structure would be up to 2.9m in height and be 

situated 1m off the side boundary of the site. 

21

Policy 

Policies DES8 and TRANS2 of East Dorset Local Plan apply as the main issues are 

the impact of the proposal on the character and visual amenities of the area, and the 

amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties along with on site car parking. 

Considerations 

Whilst the application includes a proposal to convert the garage to a study, formal 

consent is not required for this part of the application. Furthermore, replacing the 

garage door with a window would be acceptable in the street scene. 

Consent is required, however, for the summer house/store due to its height, with the 

structure being positioned within 2m to the side boundary of the site. It has a blank 

elevation facing the 2m high boundary fence and doors and windows facing into the 

site. Situated on land lower than adjoining dwellings and positioned well away from 

the rear of these properties, along with adequate screening, the proposal is 

considered acceptable. 

Members will know that an application for planning permission is determined having 

regard to the development plan, so far as material, and to other material 

considerations. As might be expected material considerations is not a defined 

expression but what is a material consideration is nonetheless, a question of law. 

Ordinarily, an existing planning permission in respect of a given site is a material 

consideration. In this instance a planning permission 3/11/0920/HOU in the same 

form as now sought came, in error, to be granted pursuant to delegated powers. The 

application should have gone, as this application has gone, to this Committee. 

Mr Timothy Straker QC, a leading silk in all matters relating to planning and local 

government, has advised East Dorset District Council that the existing planning 

permission (3/11/0920/HOU) because it was granted in error and is therefore liable to 

be set aside can and should be ignored by the Committee in their consideration of 

the present application (3/11/1158/HOU). Accordingly, the Committee is advised, 

supported by advice from leading counsel, that the material considerations here do 

not include the existing planning permission (3/11/0920/HOU) which should be 

ignored and treated as if it does not exist. This can be taken as a legal requirement. 

Meanwhile the Highways Officer has no objection to the proposal, there being 

adequate off street as well as on street car parking. 

Conclusion 

The Committee is invited to support this application which complies with Policies 

DES8 and TRANS2 of the East Dorset Local Plan. 


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. 

22

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and 

Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and 

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the 

following approved plans: location plan at scale 1:1250, location plan, block plan, 

and drawing no.BB285-01 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 





following policies: DES8 TRANS2 

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. 

23

schedule of planning applications

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

Delete template?

Save as template?