Chairman : Michael Stollery, Dip Arch, RIBA

Please reply to :
52 Victoria Avenue
Swanage
BH19 1AP

3 April 2013

Dorset & East Devon National Park Group
c/o Town Hall
High Street, Swanage, BH19 2NZ
By e-mail to : randsbrown@btinternet.com

Dear NP Team
Application to designate the Dorset AONB as a National Park

On behalf of the Purbeck Society, I am pleased to write in support of this application.

This special area, which is covered by the Dorset and East Devon Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and the Dorset and East Devon AONBs, is of exceptional landscape, biodiversity, cultural and historical quality and importance. The Dorset Coast and Heaths were considered to be of National Park quality and deserving NP designation in key reports in 1945 and 1947. We understand that only administrative difficulties prevented this designation going forward when other NPs were recommended and designated in the years after 1945.

A National Park on the basis that you propose would, the Society believes, have economic, social and environmental benefits to the area as a whole. Designation as an NP would support increased open-air recreational use with national and community health, economic and social gains. However these opportunities need to be managed in ways which maximise health, economic and social benefits while safeguarding the environment.
The additional planning safeguards provided by an NP would protect geology, landscapes and habitats. The increased connectivity thus provided between similarly designated areas would help to enable designations across Southern and South West England collectively to deliver crucial national objectives – in line with Natural England’s Designations Strategy.

Dorset’s natural beauty, varied geology, landscapes and habitats support a great diversity of wildlife, including species not found elsewhere. We understand that an illustration of the biodiversity richness and importance of this area is that one 10km grid square of land in Purbeck contains more species than any other 10kms square in the country.

The proposed NP area presents great opportunities and a growing potential for open-air recreation, The Government Department DEFRA, in a 2011 report, identified many economic, social and environmental benefits associated with National Parks and National Park Authorities. These benefits included the following: Recreation and Tourism, Health and Wellbeing, Better Informed Society, Rural Development, the beneficial Economic Impact of National Park spending on the Local Economy, Social Inclusion, and Transparency and Democracy.

Natural England has already recognised parts of the Dorset AONB and the World Heritage Site as having particular qualities as well as facing certain challenges, and thus as deserving more of NE’s focus and resources. NE has also recognised the need for improved conservation and management of the Heritage Coasts, especially when these are being threatened with the prospect of the huge Navitus Bay Wind Farm only 9 miles from this coast.

The Society has for some time been increasingly concerned with the inability of the present planning frameworks to prevent or even influence developments in the AONB, with many instances of totally inappropriate development being permitted. In the present Core Strategy/Purbeck Local Plan an unsustainable number of dwellings are proposed to be built for the open market, at a price out of reach of most local families. In NPs in other parts of the country, planning policies are in place and enforced to the benefit of local families and consequently the local economy. The present planning framework, we believe, has worked to the detriment of local people and the economy of the area. An NP Authority, which will take regard of the special qualities of Purbeck and the wider Dorset AONB would, in our opinion, be of particular benefit bearing in mind all the commercial and political pressures faced by this unique part of the country.

Other benefits of NP designation would include increased governmental resources and funding, together with the beneficial direct economic impact of National Park spending on the local economy. The local authorities and other partners in the long-established and the newest National Parks have access to such advantages. This area is so dependent on tourism, and therefore relies on the retention of its essential character in both its natural and built environment.

We believe it essential for its sustainability and future well-being that this area has the opportunity to experience the benefits that designation as an NP can give. The Society therefore is happy to give you our full support and wishes you well in your application.

Yours faithfully
Mike Stollery
M A Stollery

Download a PDF of the original letter:

Chairman : Michael Stollery, Dip Arch, RIBA

Please reply to :
52 Victoria Avenue
Swanage
BH19 1AP

Navitus Bay Developments Ltd
Units 3&4 Athena Court
Tashbrook Park
Warwick CV34 6RT

Dear Sirs

NAVITUS WIND PARK – OBJECTION

In response to the Phase Three Community Consultation, The Purbeck Society, after due consideration of the revised proposals, submits its formal objection to them and lists below the reasons for doing so.

• The Purbeck Society, a community based group with over 350 members, has traditionally been involved in the study of the natural environment in the historic Isle of Purbeck, i.e. that area of South East Dorset bounded to the north by the River Frome and to the south by the coast. More recently, with the various threats to the natural and built environment, the Society has concerned itself with conservation and planning. Due to our very particular geographical sphere of interest, our comments are confined to the perceived impact on this area. We, therefore, do not feel we should comment on the cable route or the proposed substation – leaving it to others with specific local knowledge and involvement in these areas to register their particular concerns.
• We welcomed the designation of the Jurassic coast as a World Heritage Site as recognition of the outstanding coastline that we are fortunate to have in Purbeck. It is because of the latter that the Society feels it should concern itself with the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park.
• We understand the world-wide concern about climate change, the finite resource of fossil and other fuel sources and the world’s increasing demand for energy, believing it right that alternative forms of ‘natural’ energy are being researched. As a Society we are not necessarily against harnessing wind power as a method of electricity generation. However we do strongly object to the current, revised, proposals by Eneco/EDF for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park.
• Within the Society’s membership there will many shades of opinion but the Committee, after due deliberation, is confident that the objection to the NBDL’s proposals, and the reasons for it, represents the views of the overwhelming majority. Whatever individual their views may be, individual members have been encouraged to make their own views known.

The reasons of the Society’s objections are as follows:

1. Purbeck has a fragile tourist based economy. The beauty of the coastline, beaches and cliff walks are essential to this and are indeed the fundamental basis of it. We do believe that the construction of this wind ‘park’ so close to the shore cannot be other than detrimental to it.
2. We are concerned that the designation of the Jurassic Coast as a World Heritage Site would be threatened and note that abroad extensive exclusion zones have been created around sites of similar importance so that they are not blighted. Eneco’s own wind farm development off the Dutch Coast is at a distance of some 24km (15 miles) from shore. This however does not obstruct any views except that of the open sea, the turbines are 11 km (6 miles) further away than those proposed for Navitus, are less than half the height, and there are only 60 turbines in less than 1/10th of the area proposed for the Navitus Bay ‘Park’.
3. We note that due to the strength of public protest, the nearest turbines of the proposed ‘Park’ has been moved further away from the coast by 1.4 km or 0.9 mile – However they are still much closer than the Needles at 16 miles (26km) and therefore will be seen more clearly than the Needles and the entire western coast line of the Isle of Wight.
4. Much play has been made by the Developers that the number of turbines has been reduced, as has their height. This is a piece of ‘developer spin’ as a range of 188 to 333 turbines with heights up to 210 metres was previously proposed. That these have now been narrowed down to a number of “up to 218 turbines” with heights up to 200 metres makes no significant difference to the overall impact of the scheme. These claims are, therefore, seriously misleading.
5. Also seriously misleading are the visuals. Whatever the claimed scientific methodology used by NBDL, the effect has been to reduce the visual impact of the Isle of Wight when seen from various locations along the Purbeck coastline and, even more so, that of the proposed ‘Park’. The tallest turbines are still twice as high as the Needles and the nearest of them at a little over half the distance. Common sense indicates that something twice the height of the Needles and a shade over half the distance to them will appear to be four times the height of the Needles. By being closer they will also appear much clearer. It is also noted that the height to the tip of the rotors of the smallest (5MW) turbines at 177metres is still taller than the 141metre spot level of the downs immediately behind the Needles.
6. Respondents to the Phase two consultation clearly registered concerns to the whole site of the proposed ‘Park’ but most critically to areas F, G and H. Quite clearly therefore if the developers really wished to respond to the public, they would remove all turbines from those areas. To do so would significantly reduce the Society’s opposition, especially if no turbines were located within the Government’s recommended 12 mile exclusion zone for coasts of high sensitivity, which due to its World Heritage designation, the Purbeck coastline undoubtedly is.
7. While we acknowledge that it was the geology of the coast that gained the coveted World Heritage status, it is that same geology that extends out to the sea and it is as yet unknown what the effect may be to the coast line of such a huge development, with so many deep foundations needed to support the turbines so close to the shore. The cliffs along this coastline in some areas are notoriously unstable as evidenced by the recent landslips. The effect of such a large wind farm on wind patterns and the local climate so close to the these cliffs also gives rise to concern as to whether greater erosion might be caused.
8. The site is also overlooked by two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a National Park. It does not seem that this has been taken into account at all. There are also a significant number of National Trust properties in the area, one of the most significant being Corfe Castle.
9. Eneco have used as an example of their wind farm development off the Dutch coast. However this is some 24km (15 miles) from shore and does not obstruct any views except that of the open sea. The turbines are 11 km (6 miles) further away than those proposed for Navitus Bay, are less than half the height, and there are only 60 turbines in less than 1/10th of the area proposed for Navitus Bay.
10. The Navitus Bay site is particularly bad as it is situated in the mouth of a bay surrounded by hills and cliffs which, due to their height all along this stretch of Heritage coast, the full height of the turbines would be visible.
11. We have concerns as to maintenance of the turbines and that, if constructed, whether they will be maintained to a good standard, not only as to their functionality but also their visual appearance in the corrosive marine atmosphere. Two hundred rusting turbines so close to shore would be intolerable.
12. We have concerns as the impact on wildlife, not least the migratory patterns of birds. Due to its proposed extent, the development would be a considerable danger to migrating birds attempting to pass through it, the turbulence caused by the rotors tending to disorientate them. There is mounting evidence in Europe and elsewhere that wind farms kill thousands of birds. We understand that the ‘Park’ would, if given consent, lie on a major migration route.
13. The area is home to many colonies of seabirds and other maritime species, for example Dolphins are regularly seen in these waters. We are concerned as to the possible impact of such a huge development on them, their feeding patterns and their habitats. Additionally, the dolphins – are a visitor attraction and will surely be disorientated during piling operations, the shock waves from which will cover a considerable area. It is a concern that they might never return.
14. The turbulence caused by up to 200 turbines so close to the shore could affect wind patterns coming on shore and thus the micro-climate of the coastal area. This in turn could have an adverse effect on tourism and consequently also on the economy of the area.
15. The area in question is in an area of high shipping usage, ferries, freighters and leisure craft. Such a large number of turbines would pose a considerable danger to all shipping, especially in storms and high winds, likely to be exacerbated by the turbines themselves (if able to operate in such conditions). Obstructing leisure craft would pose another threat to the viability of the area for boating, again at some loss to the local economy.
16. There is also the issue of light pollution, a growing concern in the UK and the world in general. No mention is made by the developers of the warning lights which will undoubtedly be required on top of each turbine. 200 flashing warning lights on each windmill destroy the view to the Needles at night when viewed from the beach and cliffs and be a serious distraction to the astronomers who meet at Durlston observatory especially for the dark sky.

We believe there are many more sustainable and less damaging ways of meeting the declared objectives of these proposals. The NBDL’s scheme is ill founded for the reasons stated, with the potential for blighting a historic and beautiful area. In short, the proposed ‘Park’ is much too close to shore, has too many turbines of which even the smallest is too tall to be acceptable. We submit that relocating the wind farm further out to sea would not jeopardise the future of the planet. However, accepting what is currently proposed would jeopardise the well-being and future of Purbeck by destroying its priceless historic views and coastline, and risking its World Heritage Site designation.

Yours faithfully
Mike Stollery
M A Stollery

Cc Richard Drax MP, Ashley Fox MEP, Chief Executive DCC, Chief Executive PDC, Town Clerk STC, Natural England, RSPB, National Trust, the Maritime & Coastguard Agency, The Royal Yachting Association. CPRE. Dorset AONB

Download a PDF of the original letter:

• Embedded in a valuable national asset with an economy supported by its natural beauty & the sea
• Overlooked by two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a National Park
• Close to England’s only natural World Heritage Site
• Closer than government recommendations for coasts of high sensitivity
• Closer than similar developments in Europe
• 
In the mouth of a bay rimmed by hills and cliffs
• 
On an important international bird migration route
• In an area of high shipping and boating activity
• 
Coastal ecology sensitive to micro-climate change
• Home to sea-bird colonies and marine mammals

Who do you write to?


STEP 1: WRITE to Navitus Bay Development Ltd, Units 3&4 Athena Court, Tachbrook Park, Warwick CV34 6RT, info@navitusbay.com during the formal public consultation period, Feb 1st – April 5th 2013. You must WRITE AGAIN about this new proposal if you want your opinion to influence the final decision. Clearly state “I support” or “I object”.

STEP 2: WRITE (or copy your email / letter) to your MP at House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA and local County/Borough/District Councillors, they can influence the outcome of the planning application that the developers will seek; include your address to show that you are a constituent/resident. – They can influence the outcome of the planning application that the developers will seek.

Richard Drax, MP South Dorset Richard.drax.mp@parliament.uk
Annette Brooke, MP Mid Dorset and Poole North info@middorsetlibdems.org.uk
Robert Syms, MP Poole guyn@parliament.uk
Conor Burns, MP Bournemouth West conor.burns.mp@parliament.uk
Tobias Ellwood, MP Bournemouth East tobias.ellwood.mp@parliament.uk

Christopher Chope, MP Christchurch office@christchurchconservatives.com
Bob Walter, MP North Dorset walterr@parliament.uk
Julian Lewis, MP New Forest East, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Desmond Swayne, MP New Forest West nfwca@btconnect.com
Andrew Turner, MP Isle of Wight mail@islandMP.com

To find your MP’s name, enter your postcode at www.theyworkforyou.com

STEP 3: WRITE to Dorset County Council, County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ and, your local Councillor if you are in the following Districts/Borough:
Purbeck District Council, Westport House, Worgret Road, Wareham, Dorset BH20 4PP
East Dorset District Council, Furzehill, Wimborne, Dorset BH21 4HN

To find your Councillors’ names

www.dorsetforyou.com/councillors
www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/Councillors
www.boroughofpoole.com/councillors/
www3.hants.gov.uk/yourcountycouncillors/findyourcouncillor.htm

STEP 4: WRITE to bodies that can influence this decision:

Natural England, Natural England, 2nd Floor, Cornwell House, 15 Andover Road, Winchester, SO23 7BT enquiries@naturalengland.org.uk
RSPB, SW Regional Office, Keble House, Southernhay Gardens, Exeter, Devon EX1 1NT
The National Trust, Eastleigh Court Bishopstrow, Warminster, BA12 9HW sw.customerenquiries@nationaltrust.org.uk
Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Spring PLace, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton SO15 1EG graham.proctor@mcga.gov.uk
The Royal Yachting Association, RYA House, Ensign Way, Hamble, Hants, SO31 4YA stuart.carruthers@rya.org.uk

For more addresses, information, visualisations, and reasons to challenge this proposal, see www.challengenavitus.org.uk and the Purbeck Society website at www.purbecksociety.co.uk

Challenge Navitus and the Purbeck Society are community-based groups, both organisations represent a broad body of opinion, neither supports any political party nor is anti-windpower.

Date of Navitus Bay Exhibition as part of the consolation process: Catholic Hall, Swanage 2pm-8pm Wednesday 13th February.

For dates for exhibitions in other areas, see February Gazette p23

PLEASE WRITE to protect this beautiful coastline

Bill Trite Swanage Town Council Mayor and Richard Drax (our local MP) attended to give their support. Charlie Sanderson led the protest.

As can be seen from the photos we had a good turnout with an estimate of approx 2000 against the proposed windfarm.

Friends of the Earth turned up to oppose us but many were blissfully unaware of the nature of our protest or any of the shortcomings of the Navitus Bay location.
Thanks to M.Stollery for the photos.

Dear All,

We felt it would be a good idea to provide this update after an active year opposing the wind farm scheme and before the next formal consultation in February. It is being sent to the Residents’ Associations (RAs), the HENRA committee, Challenge Navitus (CN), some MPs, councillors and council officers.

1. February 2012 consultation. The Eneco promotion roadshow generated a lot of interest but it was evident the wind company (now NBDL) would not give full details of the scheme, in particular the number, size and location of the turbines. Furthermore, the visual presentation was misleading because it underplayed the impact. One person in Christchurch remarked to the effect that the scheme would be barely visible and nothing to worry about. It was also clear from the start that the “consultation” was merely an exercise in explaining what was going to happen rather than any attempt to engage or negotiate. The project director Chris Sherrington last February has now been replaced by Mike Unsworth.
2. 10 July 2012 House of Commons Select Committee. HENRA made a written submission to the Energy and Climate Change Committee about the economics of wind power. However, the Committee did not take up our offer for our Chairman Tony Yates to present in person. In summary, the wind industry are happy to carry out these schemes onshore and offshore due to the enormous subsidies derived from customers’ fuel bills and without which, no wind farm would be built. We referred amongst other things to the Hughes’ report demonstrating that the capital cost of wind is ten times that for gas producing the same amount of power. A key submission was made to the Committee by Adrian Snook, who is an advisor to onshore wind farm protest groups and who has also mobilised the opposition of MPs. He talked about the steady increase in local anger caused by the high-handed attitude of the wind companies. In one case, The Watford Lodge wind farm, Northants., the proposal involved three years of “consultation” which he described as trench warfare - it was then built without a single change from the original design. Despite our requesting in writing that the Committee issue a report on this hearing, that request has been declined.
3. Challenge Navitus. Throughout the year, an information campaign has been undertaken to raise public awareness. Presentations have been made to councils, HENRA etc. and meetings held with the wind company particularly concerning the visual impact. Following the highly professional videos on the CN website (now including a video from the top of Hengistbury Head), the wind company has responded by updating their own visuals for the consultation next month. Hopefully, they will be less misleading than those used last February. CN has also taken part in useful press and local TV coverage.
4. HENRA. We have held meetings with our MP Tobias Ellwood. There has been ongoing but unsatisfactory correspondence with NBDL including attendance at a Drop-In session last June. It was finally possible to arrange a wind company presentation to our members (see below) on the basis of it not being a public meeting. We have a clear mandate from the members to pursue our opposition to the scheme in principle. In December, we circulated a summary of some key aspects of the wind farm and our objections to about 4,000 local residents. There have been discussions and a meeting with Bournemouth Council followed by organising the liaison needed for the RA meeting at the Miramar Hotel. We expect to have a meeting of our wind farm sub-committee with NBDL in the next two months. Contact has been made regarding the impact on the UNESCO World Heritage Site. HENRA prefers to see the scheme abandoned altogether, but failing this drastically reduced in order to be no more intrusive than Eneco’s Dutch Prinses Amalia existing wind farm. The scheme modifications, recently announced by NBDL, are too minor to make a difference to our current objections.
5. MPs work. Tobias Ellwood, Conor Burns, Richard Drax, Christopher Chope and Robert Syms are all understood to be opposing the scheme. Their concerns were spelt out at a House of Commons adjournment debate about Navitus Bay. That debate secured the statement from the minister then in post (Charles Hendry) that Navitus Bay is “not a done deal” by any means and if the wind company has not followed due process that would disadvantage the company before the planning inspector. (An example here is that the company has not put forward the “worst case scenario” as required by the Rochdale Envelope rules.)
6. 21 September 2012 meeting of residents’ associations’ representatives. A lively meeting of RAs took place at the Miramar Hotel, including also Andrew Langley from CN, and Mark Smith (tourism), Mark Anderson (task and finish group) and Steve Davies (planning) from Bournemouth Council. Andrew presented as did HENRA’s John Lambon with his large display boards giving dramatic height comparisons of turbines, buildings and land. There was virtually no support for the wind farm scheme in the room and matters were left for attendees to report back to their associations, with a view to forming an umbrella body that could speak for residents from Purbeck to Christchurch. In the meantime, HENRA would update on key matters by email, as has been done. The proposal has now been taken forward with a steering group to meet on 24 January in Poole as the next stage. I am expecting to circulate minutes of that meeting to all the RAs. At present, that list includes 39 email contacts.
7. 19 October 2012 meeting of council leaders and MPs. Following a particularly fruitless conference with NBDL (so frustrating that one senior person from the council side walked out of it), Bournemouth Council arranged this meeting to plan a strategy for the future. It was successful in that there was no support for the wind farm scheme as currently known and it was decided not to allow the company to continue to “divide and rule.” In future, councils will not meet with the company in isolation or support the company’s false claim that genuine consultation is happening and that “box can be ticked.” Each council also agreed to review its approach for consulting residents with a view to mutual co-operation. Anger was vented about how NBDL wanted to disclose their scheme in detail only after securing full planning consent. This scarcely complies with the spirit of the Rochdale Envelope, which is supposed to allow streamlined planning in return for effective consultation. MPs and councils feel number, height and location of turbines should be disclosed now. Without knowing this, how can councils produce proper Local Impact Reports?
8. Main local objections. There are many reasons to oppose the wind farm plan. National issues include the controversial foundation for the huge subsidies (man-made global warming hypothesis), the many unaffordable billions now being spent on green policies and the fact that UK wind farms will have no discernable effect on global carbon dioxide emissions. However, the generally agreed local view is that it is best for us to concentrate on local matters, e.g. visual impact, tourism losses, risk of noise affecting human health, risk to migrating birds, unbelievably poor choice of such a sensitive site for a wind farm and sailing/navigation problems. In the end, if the scheme does not fail due to austerity-driven national subsidy cuts, there will be a planning enquiry. The inspector for that enquiry will have to take national policy as given, but will be able to listen to local issues – hence it is best to concentrate on those.
9. Consultation and transparency. It is fair to say that whilst claiming to be open and listening, NBDL is not doing this. Delays and unanswered enquiries are common. For example, HENRA are still awaiting a site plan giving the 50 metre depth line, the Wight Barfleur reef location, the sloping seabed location etc. NBDL has also failed to respond to a request for the noise output of the different turbine sizes that may be used. (A noise expert from Canada has studied an offshore scheme in the Great Lakes and advised there should definitely be an independent study of noise risk here, a matter being considered now by Bournemouth Council.) RSPB is still waiting for disclosure of NBDL’s bird survey information in order to be able to decide their response to the scheme. Bournemouth Council has suggested a one year delay in NBDL making their planning application to allow time for necessary work to be completed by NBDL, work that was long since identified by the council as essential.
10. 7 November 2012 presentation to HENRA by NBDL. After the presentation by a large wind company panel and the Q & A session, the packed meeting firmly rejected the whole idea of a wind farm in Poole Bay. Minutes were produced by both sides but not agreed. The NBDL minutes were limited by not including either the project director’s presentation or the four votes by the members. The HENRA minutes included a misquote by NBDL and some suggestions were later made by NBDL to make some changes to what was said. However, the following comments on significant points should aid understanding:
    • The penultimate bullet point in the minutes of Mike Unsworth’s presentation includes a misquote of what Andrew Langley (CN) had said. Instead, Andrew would be happy with the following statement: “CN does not agree with NBDL’s statements relating to CN’s visualisations.  CN’s images are scaled to show the windfarm at exactly life-size when they are viewed from the stated viewing distance.  The field of view is necessarily limited by the number of pixels on a computer screen, as the turbines are not resolved if the view is made too wide.  For more information on the technicalities see www.challengenavitus.org.uk/videos-vs-photos.html .”
    • On page 5, there is a reference to 210 metres above the seabed, but it should have referred to above the sea level.
    • On page 3, NBDL referred to the phrase “wider perspective than is seen by the eye.” NBDL consider that it would have been clearer to have said “wider perspective based on what the human eye can see.”
    • On page 4, there is a reference to the phrase “planning issues are not particularly considered.” NBDL consider that it would have been clearer to have said “a significant number of constraints were considered.”
    • On page 5, there is a reference to the phrase “105% of the costs.” NBDL consider that it would have been clearer to have said “105% of average power prices.”

Finally, I must include a reminder please about the Swanage hand-linking at 10 a.m. onwards at the Mowlem Theatre on 13 January. It is hoped to have a good number of people there particularly as the event is to be covered by the media. For convenience, a leaflet of this event is attached.

Regards,
Bill Hoodless
Chairman HENRA Wind Farm Sub-Committee

Navitus Bay wind company presentation.

Please reply to :
52 Victoria Avenue
Swanage
BH19 1AP

10 October 2012

FAO Anthony Bird Esq
Planning & Community Services
Westport House, Worgret Road
Wareham BH20 4PP

By e-mail to planning@purbeck-dc.gov.uk

Dear Sir

Planning Applications 6/2012/0495 (Sea Mist, Cobblers Lane), 6/2012/0526 (21 Osborne Road) and 6/2012/0639 (Land adjacent to no 14 Townsend Road)

These three proposed developments proposed for the Osborne Road/Townsend Road/Cobblers Lane area follow on from that application granted on appeal for PA 6/2010/0302, Land adjacent to Rotary Cottage allowed on Appeal.
While these are separate applications, the Society takes the view that the overall impact that the three proposals would have on the area, should be considered in relation to each other, together with that of the earlier, allowed, Rotary Cottage scheme.

PA 6/2012/0526
While the Society would regret the loss of the present and very pleasant space afforded by the garden adjacent to no 21 Osborne Road, and can sympathise with the comments of the neighbour living in no.20, on balance we have no objection to the proposed development, which we consider to be entirely in keeping with the majority of, and the older part of, Osborne Road. The terrace of four houses complements the existing terraces in the road and is arguably more appropriate to the streetscape than the post war developments at the road’s western end. The traditional design, proportion and use of materials, respects the character of the street. Keeping the existing stone wall in the front is a nice touch, presumably with paved access to the front doors of the new houses. The car parking off the single access to the rear of the development would seem to work well.
However, the overall effect is a reduction of open space in this area as the site backs on to Sea Mist, the subject of Applications 6/2012/0495

PA 6/2012/0495
Having now had the opportunity to visit the site and appreciate fully its shape, topography and relationship to neighbouring properties, the Society wishes to object strongly to the application to build four houses on this site. I trust it is not too late to register our objection to this application, as we consider it to be gross over-development for this small awkwardly shaped site, impacting severely on the character of Cobblers Lane and the neighbouring properties in Osborne Road.
There would be loss of significant trees and virtually all the green space of the present attractive garden of Sea Mist would be lost. The design of the houses themselves, looks to be, at best, mediocre; being poorly proportioned, lacking in character and out of context with neighbouring properties – even the more modern ones. Additionally, two storey houses are out totally out of scale and out of keeping with the lane, being too high. They would also restrict sunlight to the gardens of houses in Osborne Road and give problems of privacy and overlooking. Furthermore, there is little indication given on the drawings as to how the landscaping would be handled on this difficult site so close to properties in Osborne Road.
Our main objection therefore is on the grounds of over development, which when considering the actual site, is surely only big enough to allow a maximum of two houses and we suggest that these should be restricted to a maximum of 1.5 storeys. Two houses on this site would not cause such significant damage to Cobblers Lane, especially if both were sited to the south western part of the site and both were accessed from the one point. The problem of overlooking and privacy to the neighbouring houses would also be lessened.
As proposed in this application, the character of Cobblers Lane would be despoiled by the additional accesses from it. From the comments of DCC Highways, it appears the lane would have to be made up, possibly with suburban style pavements and kerbs, be realigned, widened and straightened (and provided with street lights?) giving it an entirely alien character to what is presently an attractive little lane with grass verges retained here and there by small scale kerb stones.
Cobblers Lane marks the change from the urban part of the town, hereabouts of Osborne and Townsend Roads, to the open country and old quarries on the rising ground to the south. Indeed, we understand that part of the Sea Mist site includes old quarry workings. Further encroachment into this landscape must be resisted, approving this planning application and the changes that would result to Cobblers Lane and the neighbourhood would set a dangerous precedent.
We submit that this application must be refused.

PA 6/2012/0639
Once again our principal concern is over-development of the site. However, we are impressed with the design of the proposed houses, which we note will have their access from Townsend Road. Their scale and height seem appropriate compared to the neighbouring houses of Townsend Road, the form and layout of House 2 is particularly interesting. However, we would be opposed to any increase of the radius of the proposed wall at the junction of Townsend Road and Cobblers Lane, as it is important that the width of the lane at this point should not be significantly increased.
We note from the Design & Access statement that
“…Stone boundary walls are modelled to define entrances for people and cars, enclose garden space and rise to create the gable end of the northern property against Cobblers Lane…”
However, the drawings suggest this wall, apart from a stone plinth, is in coloured render. We would suggest, therefore, that the wall bounding House 2 to Cobblers Lane should be in Purbeck Stone wrapping round from the garage, to the height of its garden wall and side gate – not just a plinth. Above that height the rest of that elevation could satisfactorily be rendered. In this way we feel that the contemporary design approach would not be compromised but the character and context of the development’s setting would be enhanced.
On balance, especially if this suggestion could be incorporated, we would not object to this proposal.
In summary, the Society would be content to support application (6/2012/0526) for the terraced houses in Osborne Road and the two houses in Townsend Road (6/2012/0639), with the suggestion above and providing the essential character of Cobblers Lane is retained. Overall we feel that approval of these two applications could contribute to the character and quality of the area. However, for the reasons outlined above we remain utterly opposed to PA 6/2012/0495, the proposed redevelopment of Sea Mist and have residual concerns as to how the Rotary Cottage development at the top of the lane may turn out.

Yours faithfully
M.A.Stollery

Some photographs of the above mentioned sites/properties.

Download a PDF of the original document:

The decision to reschedule the next stage of consultation reflects the high level of attendance and feedback that Navitus Bay received from the local community at the second round of consultation earlier this year. To ensure that the community and technical feedback is given the due consideration it deserves, Navitus Bay has decided to allocate additional time and resources to fu lly explore the comments received and how they can be accommodated in to the proposals, taking into account the complex technical and environmental constraints on the project.

The extra time will enable us to :

• Commission 35 new viewpoints, including 15 daytime photomontages showing how the Wind Park will look from locations including Durlston Head, Swanage Seafront and Weymouth Beach;
• Produce an interactive computer-generated 3D visualisation of the site and cable route;
• Conduct surveys of approximately 400 businesses across the south coast to better understand their customers and the motivation of tourists visiting the area; and
• Undertake further surveys of marine mammals off Durlston Head.

In the meantime, we will continue to meet and engage constructively with consultees and stakeholder groups from the local community and we look forward to providing a comprehensive and detailed overview of how the proposals have evolved in response to public feedback in the new year.

If you do have any queries regarding the consultation or the project, please do contact the project team on our community line 0800 008 6763 or via the Navitus Bay website www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk.

Yours sincerely,
Mike Unsworth

The Society is increasingly concerned that the character of Swanage is being steadily eroded by the destruction of such properties and believes that acceptable viable alternatives, whereby these properties can be adapted for 21st Century use, while still retaining their character.

The latest case is No.2 Drummond Road in south Swanage which, to our knowledge, has been the subject of three planning applications in recent years. Each of these has involved the demolition of Drummond Lodge, an interesting Edwardian house.

Two applications have been turned down by the PDC Planning Board, upon which the Applicant went to Appeal. The first was refused by the Inspector and the second has recently been withdrawn by the Applicant who has now submitted a new planning application.

The Society’s Icase is that Drummond Lodae should not be demolished, the proposed 5 houses are out of sympathy with the neighbouring properties, the road is unsuitable for this type of development and that the character of the ‘Lanes’ area would be irretrievably spoilt. Our full letter of objection sent to the Planning Authority on 26th September is reproduced below.”

THE PURBECK SOCIETY
www.purbecksociety.co.uk
Affiliated to the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

Chairman : Michael Stollery, Dip Arch, RIBA

Please reply to :
52 Victoria Avenue
Swanage
BH19 1AP

26 September 2012

FAO Anthony Bird Esq
Planning & Community Services
Westport House, Worgret Road
Wareham BH20 4PP

By e-mail to planning@purbeck-dc.gov.uk

Dear Sir

Re 2 Drummond Road Swanage PA 6/2012/0568
Firstly we note that the Appeal to the previous scheme (APP/B1225/A/12/2170054) has been withdrawn and the informal hearing planned for 27th September has been cancelled. We only received the advice yesterday (25th September) by two identical letters addressed to the Society and dated 17th September (why the delay and why two?).
The Purbeck Society remains utterly opposed to this application as well as the previous proposals to demolish the property known as Drummond Lodge, No.2 Drummond Road, Swanage. If there were to be a local list of significant buildings, something for which the Society is campaigning, we would wish this building to be included. Therefore we are fundamentally opposed to any proposal that requires the demolition of this interesting building which is full of character.
We wish to take this opportunity to re-state our opposition to these new proposals and our reasons for doing so, which are basically those recently stated in connection with our opposition to the previous scheme, the subject of the recently withdrawn appeal.

1. Drummond Road is in an area described in the Purbeck Townscape Character Appraisal (the Appraisal) for Swanage as the Lanes (section 04.14). The Appraisal accords sufficient differentiation and importance to this area to ascribe a separate section to it. In this document the roads are described as “…predominantly characterised by informal single track lanes with surfaces of compacted aggregate and grass verges rather than pavements.” Strengths are described as “….Attractive informal lane quality and character, particularly where streets are unsurfaced“ (our italics), also “A good quality Edwardian character with attractive Arts & Crafts influences”.
2. In the Appraisal, some plots are described as “…relatively large, resulting (in) a looser knit urban grain in these locations.” The only such plot in the upper part of Drummond Road is no.2. Therefore its retention is essential to the character of the road.
3. In the Appraisal the streetscape is “…generally defined by Purbeck stone or brick walls with hedges or shrubs behind and mature trees provide visual punctuation.” [It is unfortunate that the applicants had already removed some mature trees within the gardens prior to their first planning application.]
4. Amongst the threats to the character of the area noted in the Appraisal are :

• “Highway ‘improvements’ resulting in tarmac surfaces, kerbs and pavements, resulting in the loss of grass verges etc.”
• “Insensitive redevelopment and/or resulting in the loss of mature trees or vegetation”.
• “Redevelopment of plots at higher densities resulting in the removal of boundary walls to provide vehicle access and/or increased areas of hard standing for parking (loss of enclosure and vegetation)”.

It is the Society’s contention that the development proposed would:

• destroy all the positive attributes of the character of the area of the Lanes noted in the Appraisal. Furthermore, the proposed development exemplifies all the threats listed by destroying the walls, hedges and vegetation fronting Drummond Road. The construction of five, rather than the present one, access ways to the new dwellings would destroy the verges.
• Also lost would be the important remnant of industrial archaeology of the stone way in the verge to the west side of the road, which was used when stone from the quarries at the top of the ridge was taken to the bay for transhipment.
• The intensification of housing density and resulting traffic would inevitably lead to highway ‘improvements’ with tarmac surfaces, kerbs and pavements destroying the character of the road and leading to a suburban quality, totally alien to the character of the Lanes.

The house itself can be seen from the many parts of the town and is a prominent landmark, appearing on the skyline and seen from the seafront right through to the northern areas of Swanage.

It is a particularly interesting house of the Edwardian period, being very individualistic in character with its battlemented corner bays, balconies and chimneys. Elsewhere in the Appraisal (section 04.11) one of the threats noted is “…the continued loss of quality Edwardian buildings in totality and through the progress loss of details. Loss of front gardens to off street parking…” This is true of many areas of Swanage and these proposals would provide a particular threat to the character of this particular area. For the town to retain its character, properties such as Drummond Lodge must be retained and, where necessary, adapted to modern requirements. They must not be demolished to be lost forever in favour of featureless creeping suburbanisation.

Drummond Road, being a narrow unmade lane, is unsuitable for the heavy lorries which would be using it if the extensive redevelopment proposed takes place, involving as it would demolition of the existing house and the construction of the proposed houses together with excavations for foundations as well as installation of all the additional drainage, water, gas and electrical services. It is not wide enough for the weight and width of construction plant that would be required and, if the development is allowed, all the features described would be destroyed by this traffic.

We would submit that the Townscape Character Appraisals were undertaken with the purpose of providing guidance on what should be retained and enhanced, while pointing out clearly the threats which are posed by inappropriate development. The Society is quite clear that the development proposed is unwarranted, inappropriate and in clear contravention of the intentions of the Appraisal, going against the character of this attractive, quiet, residential part of the town. We further suggest that it would be folly to ignore the Appraisal – to do so would render such exercises merely to be a waste of scarce resources and cost.

How is it, therefore, that the applicant can state in the Design & Access Statement that

“This arrangement is in accordance with the local authority guidelines.“ ?

What guidelines are these?

In fact, we would submit that the Applicant’s D & A Statement is seriously flawed and should be discounted when considering this application. For example :

(1) “The intended development form of five, 2 storey dwellings of a traditional design with a contemporary influence is considered appropriate in this location given recent modern developments constructed in the locality.“

We submit this is not so. Five houses of a more or less identical size, design and form in a line fronting Drummond Road would be completely at odds with the variety of design, types, forms and periods of the neighbouring properties,

(2) “ These design factors contribute to the creation of a sympathetic development which has been designed to complement the style and finish of the neighbouring properties.”

Reference to the drawings shows that the proposed development is not at all sympathetic or complementary in style or finish to the neighbouring properties,

(3) “It has been demonstrated that the proposal is in compliance with all relevant Development Plan policies, in particular enhancing the character and appearance of the area, respecting the amenities of neighbouring residents and avoiding harm to highway safety or convenience. There are no material considerations which suggest that the application should be determined otherwise.”

The applicant has manifestly not demonstrated that the proposal is in compliance with Development Plan policies, quite the opposite, as :

1. he has not respected the character and appearance of the area and certainly does nothing to enhance it – in fact quite the reverse,
2. by proposing such a comprehensive development, he has not respected the amenities of neighbouring residents at all,
3. the proposed development would cause grievous permanent harm to the unmade road and its grass verges,
4. if the development were to go ahead, great inconvenience would be caused in perpetuity to neighbours by the increased numbers of accesses (five instead of one) and the noise, obstruction and general nuisance that would be caused by plant and machinery during the demolition and construction phases of the project.

Once again, we would refer you to the Townscape Character Appraisal and its description of the character of the Lanes area, so important if the unique character of Swanage is not to be lost.

We trust that these comments will be included in full in the officer’s report so that Planning Board members are fully aware of the depth of opposition to these plans.

We urge you in the strongest terms, therefore, to totally reject this application.

Yours faithfully
Mike Stollery

PS I attach the photographs depicting some of the particular features, including Drummond Lodge itself which would be lost if this application succeeded.

Download a PDF of the original document:

Update: 2nd November 2012

I regret to inform you that yesterdays Planning Board gave outline approval for the demolition of Drummond Lodge and the erection of 5 houses in its place. It also gave approval to he 22 holiday lodges on the Burnbake Campsite.

Yours faithfully
Mike Stollery