Charlton Marshall
Application Type: Outline Application Application No: 2/2017/1716/OUT
Applicant: Mr Malcolm Brown Case Officer: Mr Robert Lennis
Recommendation Summary: Approve
Location: Land South Of Newlands Manor House, Bournemouth Road, Charlton Marshall, Dorset,
Proposal: Develop land by the formation of access, layout of roads, erection of approx. 55 No. dwellings and garages. Layout of car parking space and provision of landscaping. (Outline application with all matters reserved).
Reason for Committee Decision: The proposed development is a departure from the adopted local plan.
Description of Site:
The site lies immediately to the north of the settlement boundary of Charlton Marshall, north of Tannery Court, west of Gravel Lane, east of Bournemouth Road (A350), and south of the former Newlands Manor House. It measures 2.4ha and is arable land, understood to be formerly associated with Newlands Manor House. The land slopes downwards by approximately 5.5m from west to east.
The western boundary is delineated by a mix of evergreen trees and hedgerow. The northern boundary has hedgerow and maintains a visible connection to Newlands Manor House. The eastern boundary is lined with a mix of dispersed hedging and mature trees. Similarly, to the south is a mix of greenery but is also comprised of a significant amount of domestic curtilage associated with the adjacent properties of Tannery Court.
The surrounding landscape and development pattern can generally be described as ‘edge of village’ and ‘agricultural’ in character with the exceptions of the strong relationship to the Manor House to the north and the late 20th century bungalows to the south east.
There is a field access central to the western boundary and is taken directly from Bournemouth Road.
In relation to facilities within Charlton Marshall, the application site lies about 800 metres from the Village Hall on Green Close and some 400m from St. Mary’s Church. Bus services to Blandford Forum and Bournemouth/Poole run along the A350 and are situated directly adjacent the site.
The site lies to the north of Charlton Marshal Conservation Area. To the east is the Dorset AONB which terminates in line with the River Stour. An existing Rights of Way path is situated to the west opposite Bournemouth Road and a further existing Right of Way is situated to the north east extending beyond Gravel Lane past the Manor House.
Planning Policies:
Local Plan:
1. 7 Dev. within Settlement Boundaries Policy 1 - Sustainable Devt. Policy 2 - C Spatial Strategy Policy 4 - The Natural Env. Policy 5 - The Historic Env. Policy 6 - Housing Distribution Policy 7 - Delivering Homes Policy 8 - Affordable Housing Policy 13 - Grey Infra. Policy 14 - Social Infra. Policy 15 - Green Infra. Policy 20 - The Countryside
National Planning Policy Framework:
Planning policy and guidance:
National Planning Policy Framework:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
Paragraph 6 states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.
Paragraph 7 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.
Paragraph 14 states that, at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 47 seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and requires local planning authorities to use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed housing needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area (HMA).
Paragraph 49 explains that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. This in turn has implications for how development proposals should be determined, because paragraph 14 of the Framework states that where the (local) development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
North Dorset's five year housing land supply has dropped to 3.4 years as published in July 2017, which means that the housing policies contained with the Local Plan, Part 1 are not currently considered up-to-date. Therefore Paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies to this application.
134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (LP1) 2011-2031
The Development Plan consists of the saved policies of the North Dorset District Wide Local Plan to 2011 (First Revision) (adopted January 2003) and the adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (LP1) 2016-2031. The following is a brief description of some of the relevant policies referred to above. Members should refer directly to the LPP1 for full wording and scope of each policy.
Policy 1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 1 sets out the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' (from the NPPF) and the supporting text provides guidance on how 'the presumption' will be applied in North Dorset.
Policy 2 - Core Spatial Strategy Policy 2 establishes the 'core spatial strategy' for North Dorset. It identifies Blandford (Forum and St. Mary), Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Sturminster Newton as the key strategic settlements in the District and seeks to concentrate the majority of the District's growth at these 'four main towns'. It also establishes that outside the four main towns, development will be more strictly controlled with an emphasis on meeting local and essential rural needs.
The settlement boundaries will be used for development management purposes 'alongside the proposals for housing and employment growth and regeneration, as set out in Policies 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21'. The aim of this is to enable development to be brought forward on these sites in advance of the Local Plan Part 2, and enables the sites to be included in the five year supply, where proposals are sufficiently well advanced, as there would be no policy constraint to delivery.
Policy 3 - Climate Change Policy 3 sets out a number of ways in which the Council will seek to tackle the causes of climate change and also how it is proposed to adapt to the anticipated changes. The causes will be tackled primarily through measures to improve the design and performance of new and existing development and by encouraging the use of renewable energy. Adaptation measures include: encouraging increased water efficiency; reducing the impact of flooding; and reducing heat stress through the planting of trees and other vegetation.
Policy 4 - The Natural Environment Policy 4 sets out the Council's approach to the conservation of the natural environment including both landscapes (such as Landscape Character areas) and wildlife interests (including internationally, nationally and locally important wildlife sites and protected or locally threatened species).
Policy 5 - The Historic Environment Policy 5 sets out how proposals should be assessed having regard to heritage assets and what justification is necessary if less than substantial, substantial or total loss of a designated heritage asset occurs. The Policy also indicates the requirement to consider impact on buried heritage and archaeology.
Policy 6 - Housing Distribution Policy 6 sets out how housing will be distributed across the District and states: In the countryside (including Stalbridge and the villages) the level of housing and affordable housing provision will be the cumulative number of new homes delivered to contribute towards meeting identified local and essential rural needs. At least 825 dwellings will be provided in the countryside (including Stalbridge and the villages) during the period 2011 - 2031.
Policy 7 - Delivering Homes Policy 7 sets out the mix of housing that the Council would seek, in terms of bedroom size. It also sets out how the Council would meet the needs of particular groups such as families with children, older people and people with disabilities. It sets out the Council's approach to housing density, which is to seek densities that make effective use of land whilst also having regard to impacts on local character and design and amenity issues.
Policy 8 - Affordable Housing Policy 8 sets out the Council's approach to the provision of affordable housing, subject to site-based viability testing. The policy compliant proportion of affordable housing in ‘Stalbridge and the villages’ is 40% on developments of more than 10 dwellings with a tenure split of 70% affordable rent and 30% intermediate housing.
Policy 13 - Grey Infrastructure Policy 13 - Grey Infrastructure identifies future needs for: transportation, including roads, cycleways, footpaths and measures to facilitate public transport use; utilities, electricity, gas, water, sewerage and telecommunications; drainage and flood protection measures; waste; and the public realm i.e. street art and urban enhancement work.
Policy 14 - Social Infrastructure Policy 14 - Social Infrastructure identifies future needs for: education facilities including schools; health services including doctors' surgeries; emergency services; cultural facilities including libraries; recreation and sports facilities; and community facilities including community halls. The policy includes a reference that the Council will ensure that sufficient general surgeries and health centres are in place with new and expanded surgeries provided in Blandford, Gillingham and Shaftesbury.
Policy 15 - Green Infrastructure Policy 15 - Green Infrastructure states that the Council will seek to enhance the provision of green infrastructure in the main towns and in the countryside (including at Stalbridge and the villages), especially where it helps to improve recreational opportunities. The Policy sets out that development will be required to enhance existing and provide new green infrastructure to improve the quality of life of residents and deliver environmental benefits.
Policy 20 - The Countryside Policy 20 states that Stalbridge and the eighteen larger villages, which includes Charlton Marshall, will form the focus for growth outside of the four main towns. Development in the countryside outside defined settlement boundaries will only be permitted if: it is of a type appropriate in the countryside, or if it can be demonstrated that there is an 'overriding need' for it to be located in the countryside. saved policies from North Dorset District Wide Local Plan to 2011 (First Revision) (adopted January 2003)
Policy 1.7 - Settlement boundary This policy retains the Settlement Boundaries in line with the core spatial strategy for the Council.
Other
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening
This application was not screened in advance of the submission of the application under Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Therefore the Council has undertaken a screening opinion of the application submitted to assess under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 what impact the scheme would have on the environment and whether an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required for any of the considerations.
The Council Screening opinion, given the nature, size and location, is that the development would not be likely to have significant impacts on the local landscape and environment and that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.
Constraints:
Agricultural Land Grade - Grade: GRADE 3 Parish Name - : Charlton Marshall CP Public Rights of Way - Route Code: E6/19 Path Type: Footpath Ward Name - Ward Name: Riversdale and Portman Ward
Consultations:
Rights Of Way - DCC Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 20 December 2017 are as follows: No objections subject to financial contributions being secured. These would be aimed at Park Hill trailway works including but not limited to: replacing / levelling some platform slabs and some local surfacing to improve it's attraction and the site's sustainable credentials
County Planning Officer - DCC Consulted on the 12 January 2018, their comments dated 9 March 2018 are as follows: ...We have agreed the values for the s106 contributions on Education and the trailway.
County Archaeological Office - DCC Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 8 January 2018 are as follows: The application is accompanied by a report on a geophysical survey of the site of the proposed development, ... I advise that archaeology is not a matter that needs to be taken into account when this application is determined.
Tree Officer South - NDDC Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 19 December 2017 are as follows: No comments received.
Travel Plan Co-ordinator - DCC Consulted on the 18 December 2017 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
Riversdale And Portman Ward Consulted on the 18 December 2017 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
Dorset Education Authority - DCC Consulted on the 18 December 2017 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
Drainage (Flood Risk Management) - DCC Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 8 January 2018 are as follows: See comments above/below.
Transport Development Management - DCC Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 9 March 2018 are as follows: See comments below.
Environment Agency Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 11 May 2018 are as follows: ...it is outside of our checklist as there are no constraints for us to comment on. However, in regards to DCC's comments as LLFA we can advise the following.
Groundwater Protection - Our groundwater position statements Section G explain our full position in regards to discharge of liquids to ground https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/groundwater-protectionposition- statements
In summary, this confirms that the discharge of clean roof water to ground is acceptable provided that all roof water down-pipes are sealed against pollutants entering the system from surface run-off, effluent disposal or other forms of discharge. The method of discharge must not create new pathways for pollutants to groundwater or mobilise contaminants already in the ground. No permit is required from the Environment Agency, if the above criteria can be met. The Government's expectation is that developers will use a SuDS management treatment train - that is, use drainage components in series to achieve a robust surface water management system that does not pose an unacceptable risk of pollution to groundwater.
Wessex Water Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 31 May 2018 are as follows: No objections in principle.
The proposal is located in a groundwater flood risk area where there is a high risk of foul sewer inundation during periods of prolonged wet weather leading to sewer flooding. We are looking to work with the DCC as Local Lead Flood Authority to implement a groundwater management strategy and Wessex Water will be seeking higher levels of design and construction to ensure that the proposed drainage is resilient to the impacts of groundwater infiltration when the water table rises.
Natural England Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 8 January 2018 are as follows: No objection, subject to securing biodiversity mitigation and enhancement as proposed.
Natural England note the recent submission of a Certificate of Approval (dated 25 September 2017) from the DCC NET. In this case, providing the submitted Biodiversity Mitigation Plan, and its implementation in full, is secured through a condition as part of the grant of planning permission, Natural England agree with the opinion of the Natural Environment Team of Dorset County Council that the planning authority will have met their duties under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and Regulation 9(3) of The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017.
Dorset Waste Partnership Consulted on the 18 December 2017 there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
Dorset Police - Architectural Liaison Officer Consulted on the 18 December 2017 there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
NHS Property Services Limited Consulted on the 18 December 2017 there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group Consulted on the 18 December 2017 there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
Principal Technical Officer NDDC Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 4 January 2018 are as follows: No objections subject to conditions to prevent flooding and minimise the risk of pollution. "... no development shall take place until precise details of foul and surface water disposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority..."
North Dorset Primary Care Trust Consulted on the 18 December 2017 there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
The Director Of Commissioning Operations Consulted on the 18 December 2017 there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
Planning Policy Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 14 May 2018 are as follows: See comments below.
Highways Agency - Network Strategy Division Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 3 January 2018 are as follows: No objections raised.
Charlton Marshall PC Consulted on the 18 December 2017, their comments dated 18 January 2018 are as follows: See comments above/below.
Drainage (Flood Risk Management) - DCC Consulted on the 22 February 2018, their comments dated 15 March 2018 are as follows: See comments below.
Drainage (Flood Risk Management) - DCC Consulted on the 13 April 2018, their comments dated 1 May 2018 are as follows: See comments above/below.
Conservation Officer North - NDDC Consulted on the 9 May 2018, their comments dated 24 May 2018 are as follows: There is likely to be less-than substantial harm to the setting of the Charlton Marshall Conservation Area, I do not raise any objection to the proposals. If you are minded to approve this scheme, I recommend reviewing the proposed DpH of the recently completed adjacent development, which reflects the historic settlement pattern of the conservation area.
In particular, it has been noted that the site does not contain any listed-buildings and the proposed access and principle of 55 homes is not anticipated to harm the setting of individual listed-buildings.
The proposed outline scheme is to create an access off the A350 and to erect 55 new residential dwellings with associated roads, parking, open space and footways. The proposed Dwellings per Hectare (DpH) for the application site (22 DpH) is approximately equal to that found in C20 development in the village that is outside of the conservation area but adjacent to it. The DpH of development within the conservation area is approximately 15DpH, which is noticeably less dense than the C20 development.
The aesthetic value of the application site as an area of rural landscape on the edge of the settlement/conservation area and the gateway effect that occurs at the entrance to village, will be lost if the site is developed for housing. There will be creep of the Charlton Marshall settlement towards the settlement of Littleton. I believe this will result in less-than-substantial harm to the aesthetic value of the conservation area. Less-than-substantial harm does not mean no harm or acceptable harm.
Wessex Water Consulted on the 9 May 2018 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.
DCC Transport Development Liaison Manager
No objection in principle subject to conditions.
"...The application is seeking outline consent for up to 55 dwellings to be built on the site. An illustrative layout shows how the site might be developed from a single vehicular access point onto the A350. A Transport Statement (TS), prepared by the applicant's highways consultants, considers the suitability of an access being formed midway along the site's frontage onto the public highway. This junction will take the form of a new priority junction, comprising of a 6.50m carriageway with 2.00m wide footways provided either side of the access. Visibility splays at this new access accord with the recommendations of Manual for Streets, providing 2.4m by 79.0m sight lines in each direction along the carriageway (required for a highway subject to a 40mph speed limit).
A new 2m wide footway is proposed along the frontage of the site with the A350 providing connectivity between the bus stop and the development. An uncontrolled pedestrian crossing will also be provided, at the applicant's expense, at an appropriate location across the A350 (to be agreed with the County Highway Authority).
It is noted that the applicant has not provided any projected trip generation information in support of the proposal. The County Highway Authority has, therefore, carried out its own independent evaluation of likely vehicle movements using TRICS (rip Rate Information Computer System). TRICS is the national standard for trip generation analysis and employs a system of site selection filtering that enables users to simulate site scenarios through a number of progressive stages and to calculate vehicular and multi-modal trip rates based on these selections. It is calculated that the proposal could generate the following additional vehicle trips onto the highway network for a development of up to 55 dwellings - 40 two-way movements in the AM peak (08:00 to 09:00) and 50 two-way movements during the PM peak (17:00 to 18:00) and a total of up to 340 two-way trips per day.
Whilst it is accepted that the proposal will obviously increase traffic flows on the highway network the residual cumulative impact of the development cannot be thought to be "severe", when consideration is given to paragraphs 29 to 36 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)."
DCC Flood Risk Management (FRM) as relevant Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)
No objection in principle subject to conditions and informatives.
"...Following our second Holding Objection and our emphasis of prevailing flood risk, following local information provided by residents, the applicant has now submitted the following revised DS:
• Drainage Strategy (DS): Stour Close, Charlton Marshall – Akermandesign Ltd. – Rev 05 – 05/04/2018 – Ref No: AIS076/REP/01
• Email: FAO Chris Osborne Ref. PLN17-131 - Stour Close Charlton Marshall – From Rob Ackerman (Ackermandesign) to Chris Osborne (DCC FRM) – 08/04/2018
… the additional Ground Investigation (GI), which has been undertaken following our previous objection. Specifically, the latest DS, referenced above clarifies the following:
Appendix B of the above DS provides a map of trial pit locations, the BRE 365 test and borehole log results. The results suggest that geology is variable, but that infiltration will function in the north-eastern corner, where a proposed infiltration basin is to be situated. This is further confirmed by the presence of chalk, which is typically permeable. We are content the revised trial pit locations are situated in similar locations to the envisaged infiltration basin.
The applicant has not, however, undertaken Ground Water (GW) monitoring as suggested by us previously. However, the paragraph 2.2.10 provides some discussion with respect to GW levels
that have been taken and the corresponding antecedent conditions. In addition, the applicant has agreed to position their infiltration basin such that its invert is no lower than the lowest point along gravel lane so that the basin itself is elevated well above the maximum height of the modelled fluvial flood plain. Given that the water table is very likely to demonstrate some connectivity with the nearby land drainage network, we accept that positioning the bottom of the infiltration basin above the main river flood plain negates the need for a more detailed GW level assessment at this stage.
Further, the applicant has suggested using swales to store, convey and allow SW to infiltrate at higher elevations through the site. This may allow for smaller storage requirements at the north- eastern corner – further reducing the risk of GW inundation. Additionally, swales are known to improve water quality by filtering runoff and capturing contaminants.
The layout presented is still indicative and the swale and infiltration sizings still provisional also, however, the proposal description allows for “approximately 55 & garages”, provided this affords the Local Planning Authority (LPA) sufficient flexibility to insist upon fewer units, as necessary to allow for the swales and basin at detailed design and construction stage, we are satisfied that a detailed a layout can come forward at Reserved matters / Discharge of Condition(s) (DoC) stage.
The revised proposals therefore provide the minimum evidence and mitigation measures to demonstrate a feasible DS for the site.
We therefore have no objection to the application subject to the conditions and informatives…"
Charlton Marshall Parish Council
Objects to the proposed development.
Charlton Marshall Parish Council was disappointed to receive notice of this application for outline planning permission as there had been no consultation within the village and no involvement of the Parish Council or the relevant District Council Member. The S106 agreement, which, interestingly, dates back to 2016, does not recognise Charlton Marshall and includes nothing which will be of benefit to the villagers. The proposed funds for education are going to Blandford when the children in the development will fall in the catchment for Spetisbury Primary School, which is currently attended by 99.9% of primary school children from this parish. The suggestion of spending £30 000 to allow people from this field to access the Trailway should be directed towards helping improve facilities in the village e.g. Play Area refurbishment. Charlton Marshall residents also pay Council Tax to fund education, so it is important to clarify whether this is a legitimate use of s106 money. Even there the total lack of definition as regards how the money will be invested is concerning.
Charlton Marshall Parish Council, reflecting the overwhelming view of residents, does not support this application and has the following concerns:
The development is beyond the settlement boundary and is felt to be disproportionate to the size of the village and will make a dramatic visual impact on the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area and the village. There is also a concern that developments will ultimately stretch along the A350 and Blandford St Mary and Charlton Marshall will merge, which would seem to be at variance with the Minister of Transport’s prognostications just before Christmas re A roads, towns and villages. It should be noted that Charlton Marshall is not an extension of the Blandford TC/ Bryanston /Blandford St Mary Neighbourhood Plan. As regards sustainability, homes recently completed in The Old Orchard have been very slow to sell (with at least two remaining unsold) and therefore is there a requirement for housing in this area? This development is unlikely to meet local private housing needs as the properties are likely to be unaffordable to residents and their families who want to remain in the village. The demand for such a number (45%) of affordable homes for local people has to be questioned.
Will the existing drainage and sewage systems cope with the increased pressure? Residents are already reporting issues when there is a high water level. The DCC/LLFA consultation indicates huge concerns regarding the site. There is a serious concern regarding the acute shortage of capacity in the area for GP’s, Dentists and other health professionals. No amenities exist in the village therefore residents have to travel for their shopping. Efforts have been made to attract a village shop but there has been no interest. (Ref. Hall and Woodhouse December 2017). The lack of a local shop, school and employment still needs serious consideration when assessing ‘sustainability’. Volume of traffic now using this major road means residents already report difficulties in turning out of side roads or driveways onto the road. The 250 proposed houses at Blandford St Mary will inevitably aggravate a growing problem of increasing the traffic and this Charlton Marshall development could add another 130 cars. Why has Highways England called the A350 the A31? This does not inspire confidence. The roundabout serving the A350/A31 is at the far end of Sturminster Marshall, which admittedly would bear the brunt of increased traffic. What about the A350/A354 Tesco roundabout only half a mile away? Speed of traffic – although the village is a 30mph speed limit the Speedwatch team regularly record vehicles travelling at more than 40 mph. Vehicles constantly exceed 40mph in the 40mph area from Blandford. The proposed development is at the limit of the 30mph section and therefore vehicles will be approaching the junction at much greater speed. It is therefore requested that the 30mph zone be moved up towards Blandford and the other side of the garage. It was disappointing to note that DCC Highways felt there is no need to extend the 30 area to accommodate any development. There is also considerable disquiet that any proposed crossing will not be controlled. We dispute the very low statistic supplied regarding accidents over the last 5 years. Visibility – residents report that there is a slight crest in the road at the point of the new development and it is very difficult to determine the distance and speed of vehicles approaching from Blandford. This has not been addressed in Dorset CC Highways report.
… The adverse effects of this development will significantly outweigh any notional benefit to Charlton Marshall and the creation of an undesirable dormitory-effect development on the edge of Charlton Marshall will bring no benefit to the existing local community.
NDDC Landscape and Trees Officer
No objections in principle.
The site of the proposed development sits across the boundary of two landscape character types: Open Chalk Downland, and Valley Pasture. It typifies these contrasting patterns, having large scale, intensively farmed arable fields rising gently to the south west, and the much smaller scale, intimate feel of the River Stour valley to the north east.
The arboricultural report (Mark Hinsley Arboricultural Consultants Ltd. 8th September 17) provides a fair summary of the trees on and adjacent to the site, and of the constraint to development they represent. I don’t however, share the view that the visually significant group of horse chestnuts on the north-eastern boundary is in such poor condition as to require complete removal as part of development. I agree that tree T11 should be felled and replaced, but I consider the remaining three trees might be retained given certain remedial works.
The overall layout, in landscape terms, does take a reference from the gardens of Newlands Manor, by introducing a parkland link on a contour across the site. This is to be welcomed as it would enable development to sit as naturally as possible in the locality. However, I have concerns that some of the higher density areas (apart from the “walled garden” area, where there’s a compelling design argument) fail to reflect what we find in the immediate vicinity in spatial terms, and we would struggle to achieve adequate space or separation for the planting that the illustrative layout suggests. For this reason, I’d recommend a lower density overall (35-40 units perhaps?) in order to achieve sufficient space within the development for trees of a large size at maturity.
On a point of detail, whilst the conifer hedge on the road frontage does provide a visual screen, it’s rather incongruous in the setting and, to my mind, there would be some visual benefit in removing it. In addition, the hedge is roughly 6m wide and, consequently, takes a significant portion of ground along the road frontage. As shown in the illustrative layout, the units immediately to the rear of the bus stop would be unacceptably shady.
I consider development could be accommodated on this site without significant landscape harm, but I believe a lower density of units is necessary in order to achieve an appropriate balance.
Planning Policy Team
The Council’s Policy Team has brought attention to the following points:
The Council cannot at present demonstrate a five year housing land supply. North Dorset's five year housing land supply has dropped to 3.4 years as published in July 2017, which means that the housing policies contained with the Local Plan, Part 1 are not currently considered up-to-date.
LP1 Policy 2 ‘Core Spatial Strategy’ states that development outside of the defined settlement boundaries will be subject to the countryside policies where development will be strictly controlled unless it is required to enable essential rural needs to be met. There is no indication that this proposal is seeking to be compliant with any of the relevant countryside policies in the Local Plan (see LP1 Policy 20 and Figure 8.5).
The settlement boundary for Charlton Marshall is tightly drawing around the existing built form. As such, any additional development associated with Charlton Marshall will have to be, by definition, in the countryside. Therefore, any speculative development site needs to be considered having regard to their relationship with the settlement boundary.
LP1 Policy 6 ‘Housing Distribution’ does not put a ceiling on the number of houses that could be built in the countryside, rather it states “at least” 825 dwellings will be provided.
NPPF and 5-year supply - This proposal would normally be refused as it is contrary to LP1 Policy 2. However, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The official position of North Dorset’s 5-year supply as of April 2017 is confirmed in the North Dorset Annual Monitoring Report 2017 (available online). It states that North Dorset has a 3.4 year supply of deliverable sites (as defined by NPPF footnote 11). As a result, NPPF para 49 becomes relevant. It states: Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
That in turn invokes NPPF para 14 (including footnotes 9 and 10), which states:
For decision-taking this means:
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
In the excerpt above, two exceptions are given when planning permission shouldn’t normally be granted. These are discussed below.
Exception 1: any adverse impacts ...
- This is known as the tilted balance, in that it tilts the balance in favour of development proposals. However, due to the ‘tilted balance’, harm would need to be of a significant scale in order to refuse proposals for planning permission in respect to this exception.
Exception 2: specific policies…
- The difference in wording between the two exceptions denotes that material considerations under exception 2 should not be subject to the ‘tilted balance’. In other words, harm does not necessarily have to be significant in order to refuse an application with respect to this exception but it does need to be specific.
Actions the Council is taking to address 5-year Housing Land Supply Shortfall –
The need for the District to maintain a 5-year housing supply is a material consideration. To this end, it should be noted that the Council is taking positive actions to remedy the situation, for example, through funding the Opening Doors project (www.openingdoorsdorset.co.uk). At April 2017, permission was granted for 1,532 dwellings (AMR 2017), compared to 772 at the same time the year before. Since April 2017, permission has been granted for a further 350 units, and planning applications have been submitted for a further 1,621 units on land allocated at Gillingham. A number of other planning applications have been submitted and are currently pending determination, totalling 300 dwellings. We are also aware of other sites that are likely to have applications submitted for them shortly. A 3.4 year housing land supply means that the District has a shortfall of 708 dwellings in its supply. It should be appreciated that not all the planning applications that have been submitted recently will be deemed suitable.
Representations:
31 letters of representation were received, of which 1 offered comments which neither supported nor objected to the proposal, 29 objected to the proposal and 0 supported the proposal.
A number of representations have been received. Concerns and objections relate to the follow:
Principle of development in the countryside contrary to local plan policies; Flooding issues; Traffic and highway safety; Effect on the apprearance of the area; Design; Biodiversity; Residential amenity; Economic benefits; Noise and disturbance; Lack of local services, such as shops, GPs, play space, schools; Impact on police and ambulance services.
No comments were received in support of the application.
Relevant Planning History: Application: 2/1981/0031 Proposal: Develop land by the erection of 18 No detached bungalows Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 10.03.1981
Planning Appraisal:
This is an outline planning permission for up to 55no. dwellings on this site with all matters reserved.
The applicant is willing to accept a condition limiting the number of houses to no more than 40no. dwellings and provide a raft of planning contributions to be secured through a legal agreement.
The only matter to be decided at this point in time is the principle of building 40no. dwellings in light of local plan policy and any other material consideration, i.e. constraints of the site, and necessary contributions to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
The main issues of this case are considered to relate to:
Principle of development; Setting of the Charlton Marshall Conservation Area; Flood risk; Highway safety; Ecology; Affordable housing; Planning contributions; Planning balance.
Principle of development
The Council cannot at present demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Therefore our local plan policies in relation to the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date. A 3.4 year housing land supply is considered to be a serious shortfall that needs to be addressed.
It has been noted above that we have a number of speculative applications in at the moment for housing development. However, it should be appreciated that not all of these applications will be deemed suitable.
It will be for members to attribute the amount of weight given to policies in the planning balance exercise of each case. It is considered that the further away from a demonstrable five year housing land supply that more weight should be given to the benefits of delivering of houses.
The proposed development site shares a boundary with the designated settlement boundary for Charlton Marshall. By definition, the site is in the countryside but policies which limit countryside development are out-of-date. This location is a more favourable relationship than isolated development in the countryside. It is considered that this merits favourable consideration for the delivery of housing in the district.
Setting of the Charlton Marshall Conservation Area
Your Conservation Officer has considered the proposal in context of this site having due regard to the surrounding heritage assets. He has concluded that the proposed development would result in less- than substantial harm to the setting of the Charlton Marshall Conservation Area, and had no objection. However, he suggested reviewing the proposed ‘dwellings per hectare’ to better reflect historic settlement pattern of the conservation area. With this your officers were able to negotiate a reduction in the proposed total number to 40no. dwellings.
Flood risk
The matter of potential flood risk has been noted in several of the representations received. DCC Flood Risk Management team has raised no objection to the scheme subject to conditions, and neither has our technical engineer. It is important to remember that the applicant is not require to “fix” or reduce flood risk through their development only demonstrate that they will not worsen the existing situation. DCCFRM has also noted that for the purposes of the proposed development the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the site can be drained.
Highway safety
The matter of highway safety has been noted in several of the representations received as well. Comments of ‘no objection’ from DCC as Local Highway Authority were received prior to officers negotiating the reduction in housing numbers to 40no. dwellings. These were based on their own independent analysis of the situation. Their conclusions “..that the proposal will obviously increase traffic flows on the highway network the residual cumulative impact of the development cannot be thought to be "severe", when consideration is given to paragraphs 29 to 36 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)” should remain the same and the same conditions imposed to any permission granted.
Ecology
The applicant has submitted a thorough ecological assessment and their biodiversity mitigation plan (BMP) has been certified by DCC Natural Environment Team. If permission were to be granted the BMP should be the matter of a bespoke condition to secure the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures therein.
Affordable Housing
The application proposes to provide 16no. dwellings (40% of total) as affordable housing units which is compliant with Policy 8. These would be provided at 60% affordable and 40% intermediate rented. This is slightly outside the range in policy but is considered acceptable having regard to local circumstance.
The provision of affordable housing should weigh significantly in the planning balance.
Planning contributions
The council works positively with developers to foster the delivery of sustainable development in line with national policy. It is considered that the application of adopted policies would not compromise the viability or otherwise hinder the deliverability of this speculative application. In any case where viability is presented as an issue by a developer an ‘open book’ approach will be sought in order to robustly examine the site specific viability and secure the maximum level of provision achievable at the time of the assessment.
The applicant has agreed to make the following contributions:
Primary and secondary education - £6094.00 per dwelling Pre-school provision - £190.50 Rights of Way contributions - £30,000 one-off Village hall, leisure, & indoor sport - £ 2,006.97 per dwelling Destination Play - £967.52 per dwelling Destination Play maintenance - £359.36 per dwelling Formal outdoor sports - £1,318.80 per dwelling Formal outdoor sports maintenance - £128.73 per dwelling Informal outdoor space - £2,152.80 per dwelling Informal outdoor space maintenance - £ 1,278.80 per dwelling Allotments - £308.16 per dwelling
The applicant has offered to put the informal outdoor space on site. As such they have been informed that on site provision of informal outdoor space, in addition to any landscape planting required on site, should be provided to at least Fields in Trust benchmark guidelines with recreational opportunities being as per Policy 15. For clarity it is expected that a LEAP should be provided on-site to Fields in Trust standards.
Contributions towards the maintenance of the on-site provision would be necessary if the parish council is to be offered to take them on, alternatively they will be addressed through the management company.
The wording of planning obligations in the legal agreement will ensure the use of any contributions is directly related to the development in all cases and that if not applied within an agreed timeframe then they will be returned to the originator or successor.
Other matters
All other planning matters raised have been consider have been consider in the context of the site.
Planning balance
The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to this: economic, social, and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation because they are mutually dependent.
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF constitutes guidance and a material consideration in determining applications.
This Council’s Policies in the adopted Local Plan follow the approach of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It has been noted above that this Council can only demonstrate 3.4 years of housing land supply as such the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.
This invokes NPPF para 14 (including footnotes 9 and 10), which states in part that when policies are out-of-date, the Council should granting permission unless:
. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
. specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
On the first point there has been no particular issue associated with this site and proposed residential development considered above that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of delivering 16no. affordable housing dwellings and 24no. open market dwellings.
On the second point, it has been noted that this development would cause less than significant harm to the adjacent heritage asset. However, this harm would not outweigh the benefits of delivering much needed affordable houses and open market.
Conclusion:
Recommendation: APPROVE
Conditions:
1. Application for the approval of any Reserved Matter must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Approval of the Reserved Matters (i.e. any matters in respect of which details have not been given in the application concerning the layout, scale, appearance of the building(s) to which this permission and the application relates, or to the means of access to the building(s), or the landscaping of the site) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Such development shall be carried out as approved.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2. The development hereby permitted it shall be carried out strictly and only in accordance with the following approved drawings and details: - 16107.01A Location Plan forming the approved application. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify the permission.
3. Prior to commencement of development, details of the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure highway safety and appropriate development of the site.
4. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, a scheme showing precise details of the proposed cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be constructed before occupation of any dwelling and thereafter maintained, kept free from obstruction, and made available for the purpose(s) specified.
Reason: To ensure the proper construction of the parking facilities and to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes.
5. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, the following works shall be constructed to the specification of the Local Planning Authority: o A new 2.00m wide footway along the frontage of the site with the A350 as shown on Figure 2 of the Transport Statement dated October 2017 (AIS076/REP/02 Revision 04) o An uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at an appropriate location across the A350 (exact position to be agreed with the County Highway Authority).
Reason: These specified works are seen as a pre-requisite for allowing the development to proceed safely; providing the necessary highway infrastructure improvements to mitigate the likely impact of the proposal.
6. Prior to commencement of development, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP must include:
construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) a programme of construction works and anticipated deliveries timings of deliveries so as to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods a framework for managing abnormal loads
contractors' arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing and drainage) wheel cleaning facilities vehicle cleaning facilities Inspection of the highways serving the site (by the developer (or his contractor) and Dorset Highways) prior to work commencing and at regular, agreed intervals during the construction phase a scheme of appropriate signing of vehicle route to the site a route plan for all contractors and suppliers to be advised on temporary traffic management measures where necessary
The development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed Construction Traffic Management Plan.
Reason: To ensure highway safety and to minimise the likely impact of construction traffic on the surrounding highway network by preventing amongst other things the possible deposit of loose material on the adjoining highway.
7. Prior to commencement of development, a detailed and finalised foul and surface water management scheme for the site, for both during and after construction and based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed details before the development is completed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality.
8. Prior to commencement of development, details of the maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the agreed details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.
Reason: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.
9. The biodiversity mitigation plan (dated 25 September 2017) submitted with this application shall be carried out in full prior to completion of the development hereby approved.
Reason: To ensure the habitat of the flora and fauna has been given adequately mitigated or compensated for.
10. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed so as to provide a sealed system of foul water drainage.
Reason: to prevent groundwater infiltration into the foul sewer network affecting service levels to public sewer systems
11. No more than forty dwellings shall be built on this site hereby approved for residential, and associated, development.
Reason: having regard to the context of this particular site it is considered any more dwellings would have any adverse impact on the character of the area.
Human Rights:
This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party. Public Sector Equalities Duty (PSED) As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims: Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics. Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people. Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low. Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED.
DECISION:
LOCATION PLAN 2/2017/1716/OUT
DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. North Dorset District Council LA Licence Number LA078778