Planning Committee 17 August, 2017 WD/D/17/000758

Application Number: WD/D/17/000758 Full

Registration Date: 21 March, 2017

Application Site: CHARITY FARM, MAIN STREET, LITTON CHENEY, DORCHESTER, DT2 9AP

Proposal: Erection of 6no. dwellings & conversion of a redundant agricultural building to a dwelling

Applicant: Mr Romans

Ward Members: Cllr J Russell

Case Officer: Ann Collins

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Refuse

2. Description of development 2.1 The proposal is for a development of a total of 7 no. dwellings. Six of the homes will be located on the south side of the former farmyard with the seventh formed by conversion of the former bull pen. Development of the site was originally discussed with WDDC as a Pre- Application, Ref. WD/D/14/001603 and subsequently submitted as planning application WD/D/15/000945. Those applications were withdrawn for further consideration following discussions with the Parish Council and WDDC.

The proposals include:

1. Replacement of the Bull pen with a small 2- bedroom dwelling. This will improve the aspect at the entrance to the site.

2. To dismantle and remove a 112m2 corrugated sheet covered appendage from the east side of the former pig shelter which is currently used for machinery storage.

3. To construct 6 no. 3- bedroom homes each with an internal area of 84 m2 to form a small development.

4. To repair and relocate the former pig maternity shelter. The shed will be used as an ancillary structure to provide 2no. car parking spaces for the development and storage to support the Tithe barn holiday accommodation.

2.2 There is a corresponding listed building consent application

3. Main planning issues · Principle of development · Impact on the setting of the listed building. · Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area · AONB · Residential amenity · Highway safety · Biodiversity · CIL

4. Statutory Consultations

Parish/Town Council 4.1 Litton Cheney Parish Council met on 18th May to consider the two planning applications for Charity Farm. In addition to the applicant and agent, twenty six local residents attended indicating considerable interest in this proposed development. Also in attendance was District Cllr John Russell.

Litton Cheney Parish Council during a meeting that lasted two and a half hours, having listened to all those wishing to speak, deliberated for some time before deciding to respond via “Comment” rather than “Object” or “Support” for the following reasons and concerns:-

1. Litton Cheney has no Defined Development Boundary and the Local Plan indicates that other than an area identified as an Exception Site no development would take place in such a situation. SUS2 iii) of the Local Plan, while stating that outside of a DDB, development will be strictly controlled, allows for affordable housing and open market housing through re-use of existing rural buildings. The planning application has elements of the two exceptions plus an assertion by the applicant in the application form that the proposed development area is a redundant farmyard, although more accurately described as agricultural land of little use. The Parish Council are therefore unsure how this fits with the Local Plan.

Litton Cheney Parish Council welcomes the proposal for three affordable dwellings on the Charity Farm site. The “affordable” aspect however needs to be more clearly defined and established, given the application form only refers to market housing.

As a result of a recent survey Litton Cheney has chosen not to pursue a Neighbourhood Plan on a 60/40 percentage outcome believing that the Local Plan will accommodate the aspirations of the majority of local residents.

In addition the Parish Council have the following concerns:

We believe that there is inadequate car parking provision in accordance with the Dorset Residential Car Park Study, which will lead to cars being parked on the already congested village highways. We understand that there is a requirement such that if the developer wishes to provide a different level of parking, they will need to provide evidence to support their proposals and agree the variation with both Highways Development Control Engineers at Dorset County Council and with the Planning Officers.

The Parish Council believe the 6 proposed dwellings to be over-development of the site given the density of dwellings and is out of scale within the village, AONB and conservation area. The density impacts considerably on the ability to satisfy the requirements of a).

The site is elevated higher than adjacent properties and the council are concerned about overlooking and loss of privacy of several nearby properties thereby giving cause for a material planning objection. We are heartened however that at the meeting the architect indicated he would submit amended plans to show a fence along the south and west boundaries of affected properties. The applicant and architect also indicated a willingness to liaise with owners of neighbouring properties in order to seek resolution of their concerns including effective landscaping.

If the District Council was considering approving the application the council would ask for a condition requiring that the pig barn be dismantled and relocated to its new position before development commences, and that the roof of the pig barn be constructed or covered in appropriate material and painted a suitable colour. The applicant indicated that this is his intention.

In the event of approval the Parish Council would strongly lobby for a condition that the southern entrance to Charity Farm be used by construction traffic and future occupants of the new dwellings at all times. The council would also require a condition that the existing access via the Tithe Barn be blocked off from the site prior to development commencing and retained thereafter.

The applicant confirmed that the Bull Pen dwelling would be sold as an open market property for permanent residency as opposed to second home ownership or as an adjunct to the Tithe Barn as a holiday-let. Confirmation was also given that whilst construction was underway, materials would be brought in via the southerly access, avoiding use of the normal access to the Tithe Barn. 2. The applicant has offered to enter into an S106 agreement regarding the “affordable” dwellings aspect and how this would be ascertained and eligibility established. The perceived need for truly affordable housing in the village has yet to be established and within this application appears to be based on anecdotal evidence, there being no response as yet from the Housing Enabling Team Leader (a consultee).The council feel it absolutely essential that the Parish Council have an active involvement in establishing the terms of the S106, conditions that would be in perpetuity, should the District Council be minded to approve the application.

3. Finally, the Parish Council considers this unfinished business due to insufficient information being provided. Undertakings and avowed intentions were indicated by the applicant and agent at the meeting which will need to be reiterated and ultimately incorporated as concrete obligations into an S106, and adjustments made to the application before the council can move beyond “Comment”.

Highway Authority 4.2 No objection subject to a condition regarding the provision of the areas for manoeuvring, parking, loading and unloading of vehicles as shown on the approved drawings and their retention there afterwards.

5. Other consultations 5.1 DCP Environmental Health – No comment.

DCP Conservation Officer – The development does have an affect on the listed building but it is acceptable. The development has been kept as far away from the barn as possible. The scale and materials used for the development respects the rural nature of the area and do not detract from the setting of the barn. The site layout does not overcrowd the foreground of the main listed building.

DCP Housing Enabling Team – The application is for a small scheme of six units and the conversion of a bull pen on Charity Farm. The site is not within a defined development boundary so it would be expected that all the properties delivered would be affordable. If there are to be affordable homes then this proposal needs to be more clearly defined by the applicant with a S106 agreement to secure the properties in perpetuity. There is a high level of housing need in the District but further work needs to be done to establish the level of housing need in Litton Cheney.

DCP Technical Services Team – No comments to make on this application with regard to flood risk or ground instability.

DCP Planning Policy – The comments of the planning policy officer will be detailed and considered further in the report below.

6. Other representations 6.1 8 letters of representation have been received from 6 different writers. They raise the following points:

· Require the timber barn to be erected as shown on the drawings and for it to be completed prior to the commencement of any other part of the development. Also require a condition that its use be permanently restricted to storage or garaging and that no windows or rooflights be inserted along the side facing “Watercombe”. If it completely disintegrates whilst being dismantled, a repaired or replacement building should be erected. Without these guarantees there is a strong objection to the development. · More thought needs to be given to the screening of the garden to “Corn Rigs”. · If Litton Cheney is to have more development for local need this is the type of housing required but it is not clear if it will be “open market” or “affordable housing”. · If all planting and screening is done this type of development, although not perfect, could be suitable for this site. · No objections to the building of 6 new dwellings. · The increased use of the track to access the “bull pen” means there needs to be repairs to broken drainage and surface strengthening. · Wheelwrights cottage has a long thin garden which on two sides would be bordered by the development. There is only a wire fence and newly planted hedge to provide screening. Noise and activity of 6 households and vehicles up against the boundary would be significant. The proposed vegetable/fruit area adjacent to the boundary would concentrate activity and play, particularly at the weekends. · The communal heating plant, its feed mechanism and deliveries to it would generate noise, but hard to determine as lack sufficient detail. · Garden of Wheelwrights and rear of the house would be overlooked. The proposed fruit trees would cast a shadow across the garden. Could erect a fence around the garden but then this would put much of the garden in the shade and would not stop sound or fumes. · Fumes would be generated by traffic, car parking and biomass boiler, · Development would result in a loss of outlook to Wheelwrights. Any fence around the garden would further this loss. · Backland development that is out of character. · Unconvinced that a fragile grade II listed building can be successfully moved. The rare surviving thatched barn is currently protected by tin covering. · Overdevelopment of the site and not in keeping with the rest of the village. · No evidence that additional properties are required. There are family sized properties for sale in the village that have not been bought. · Parking is insufficient. · Neighbouring properties will suffer a loss of privacy and amenity. The proposed development site is some 3 to 4 metres higher than Main Street resulting in a row of houses dominating the area, seen from all around the village and looking directly down into existing gardens and bedrooms. · Submitted plans include errors. · New dwellings would face neighbouring properties from an elevated position. This would result in loss of privacy to garden and bedrooms and a loss of outlook. Landscaping and planting would be particularly important in reducing this impact. · There is an existing Holm Oak on the site adjacent to the rear boundary of Watercombe, now shown on the site plan. It should be retained as a valuable feature and for screening of existing properties. · A wide margin should be added along the east boundary with a new hedge and a 2m high close boarded fence. · It could be possible in Litton Cheney to accommodate houses in smaller groups adjacent to the street. · The proposals do not meet the criteria in Policy HS2 of the adopted local plan. · The applicant has now agreed to sell a strip of land adjacent to the garden of Wheelwrights Cottage which would mean the development would not dominate the garden. The gains of him doing this would counterbalance the remaining issues of disturbance at the end of the garden.

Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com.

7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

8. Relevant Planning History

App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Office r 1/D/07/0013 FUL Erect replacement A 26 EH 85 agricultural building Septem ber 2007 WD/D/14/00 FUL A new agricultural livestock A 28 April DR 0574 building in the existing farm 2014 yard WD/D/14/00 FUL An agricultural building in A 28 April DR 0576 the existing farm yard of 2014 Charity Farm to be used for the storage of feed and machinery WD/D/14/00 CWC Request for confirmation of 20 DR 1577 compliance with condition August 4, 5 and 6 of planning 2014 approval WD/D/14/000574 WD/D/14/00 CWC Request for confirmation of 03 DR 1578 compliance with condition 3 Septem of planning approval ber WD/D/14/000576 2014 WD/D/15/00 FUL Erection of 3no. new W 09 BB 0945 dwellings Septem ber 2015 WD/D/15/00 LBC Erection of 3no. new W 09 BB 0946 dwellings Septem ber 2015 WD/D/16/00 FUL Erection of 3no. dwellings UNK 1908 WD/D/16/00 LBC Erection of 3no. dwellings INV 1909 WD/D/16/00 FUL Erect 6no dwellings, UNK 2569 alterations and conversion of former bull pen to dwelling WD/D/16/00 LBC Dismantle, repair and UNK 2570 relocate former pig maternity shelter and use as storage and parking WD/D/17/00 LBC Dismantle barn (pig shelter) A ALC 0759 and former bull pen

9. The Development Plan

The WDDC/WPBC Local Plan (adopted Oct 2015) As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant. INT1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV1 – Landscape, seascape and sites of other geological interest ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats ENV4 – Heritage assets ENV10 – The landscape and townscape setting ENV12 – The design and positioning of buildings ENV16 – Amenity SUS2 – Distribution of Development SUS3 – Adaptation and re-use of buildings outside defined development boundaries COM7 – Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network COM9 – Parking Standards in New Development COM1 – Making sure new development makes suitable provision for community infrastructure

10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 WDDC Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009)

AONB Management Plan 2014 - 2019

11. Other Material Planning Considerations 11.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Part 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes

Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Para 56 - The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Para 57 - It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.

Decision taking: Para 186 - Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground.

Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area 12 Conservation Area Appraisals Puncknowle, Burton Bradstock, Litton Cheney, Winterbourne Abbas and Shipton Gorge Conservation Area Appraisal (2007)

13. Planning issues 13.1 Principle of development:

The application site is on the edge of Litton Cheney, a village which in the adopted local plan does not have a defined development boundary. It is within the AONB and within the Litton Cheney Conservation Area. The barn to the north of the site is a grade II listed building.

The application proposes 6 new build dwellings and the replacement of a former bull pen with an additional dwelling, making 7 in total. It also proposes the demolition of a curtilage listed building (for which there is a separate application for listed building consent) and the erection of a new garage/store building.

Planning policy officers have commented on the application and their comments have fed into the following assessment of the application.

The main policy issues are:

conflict with the spatial strategy of the Local Plan (Policy SUS2), and the impacts of the proposed development.

The proposals need to be considered in the context of the councils not being able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The result is that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date’ in line with paragraph 49 of the NPPF. This has triggered the engagement of paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the application of the second sentence of Policy INT1 of the Local Plan.

In relation to the spatial strategy in the Local Plan, Litton Cheney village does not have a DDB but is a settlement of 200+ population.

13.2 Implications of the Recent Supreme Court Judgement:

The councils cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In a recent appeal decision at Ryme Road, Yetminster (Appeal Ref: APP/F1230/W/16/3145484) the Inspector concluded that the councils have 4.63 years of supply across the local plan area and this remains the position.

The ‘decision-taking’ provisions in paragraph 14 of the NPPF are engaged when ‘relevant policies’ in a local plan are out-of-date. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF 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”.

A recent (May 2017) Supreme Court judgement (Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017] UKSC 37) concluded that paragraph 49 of the NPPF essentially acts as a ‘trigger’ for the engagement of paragraph 14, in situations where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing sites. In the light of the current housing land supply position in West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland, it is accepted that paragraph 14 has been triggered in relation to this application.

The Supreme Court also ruled that paragraph 49 should only apply to ‘housing supply policies’, rather than to other policies which may interact with housing supply policies and so have some effect on their operation. In the light of this ‘narrow’ interpretation in the judgement, the ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing’ in the Local Plan, which are considered to be out-of-date in relation to this application, are Policies SUS1 and SUS2.

The Supreme Court judgement also re-asserts the primacy of the development plan. In determining this application, the overall planning judgement on this proposal needs to reflect the primacy of the Local Plan given by statute and the status of the NPPF as a material consideration, which should not displace or distort the statutory scheme.

The application needs to be determined under the general provisions in the second part of paragraph 14, meaning that permission should be granted unless the presumption can be displaced on either or both of the grounds set out in the second part of that paragraph.

Under the ‘tilted balance’ in the penultimate bullet of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, the presumption could be displaced on the grounds that the ‘adverse impacts’ of the proposal ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the NPPF and against Local Plan policies. In cases where the ‘tilted balance’ is applied, consideration needs to be given to the extent to which the weight given to any restrictive Local Plan policy (whether out of date or not) should be reduced.

Under the final bullet in paragraph 14 of the NPPF the presumption could be displaced if the proposal is contrary to certain ‘specific policies’ in the NPPF. The Supreme Court judgement indicates that when applying this bullet, any proposed development should also be considered against related policies in the Local Plan, which should be given full statutory weight in decision-making.

13.3 Conflicts with Policy: The proposal is contrary to criterion i) of Policy SUS2, which sets out the spatial strategy for the Local Plan area. Criterion i) of Policy SUS2 directs development in rural areas to settlements with DDBs, which occupy the third tier of the settlement hierarchy after the ‘mains towns’ of Dorchester and Weymouth and the ‘market and coastal towns’. Criterion i) of Policy SUS2 also states that settlements without DDBs “may also have some growth to meet their local needs”. The rationale for this approach is explained in paragraph 3.3.27 of the Local Plan, with an emphasis on neighbourhood plans and other planning tools but highlighting the problems associated with development in rural locations.

Criterion iii) of Policy SUS2 states that: “Outside defined development boundaries, development will be strictly controlled, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. The policy restricts development outside of DDBs to a limited range of uses but only makes provision for market housing through the re-use of existing rural buildings or affordable housing as exception sites (Policy HOUS2).

As a settlement without a DDB, Litton Cheney village sits in the lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy and therefore is not a location where development for market housing would be directed. The proposed development site lies outside of any DDB, and is therefore in a location where development is strictly controlled under Policy SUS2. The proposal is for market housing but does not re-use an existing building (even the dwelling where the former bull pen is would be a new build dwelling given how little of the existing building remains); it is therefore contrary to the provisions of SUS2 criterion iii).

The scheme proposes the creation of a total of 7 new market dwellings although a statement is included suggesting that three out of the seven units would be sold at a discount below market value and the discount suggested in an email from the agent is 20%. It is suggested that the new dwellings will help to meet a local need although little quantitative evidence is supplied within the submitted documentation to prove that given the lack of a documented housing need in Litton Cheney and having regard to the percentage discount.

Under criterion iii) of Policy SUS2, particular regard should be given to environmental constraints, so any impacts on such constraints should be evaluated when applying this criterion. The site is located within the Dorset AONB therefore any impacts on the designated area should be considered against Policy ENV1. Similarly, the proposal site is in the conservation area and in close proximity to several listed structures so the impacts should be considered against Policy ENV4. These matters will be considered in detail below.

13.4 Making a Planning Judgement: The Supreme Court supported the view that the weight to be given to policies (including out-of-date policies) “is, as ever, a matter for the decision-maker”.

In the decision on the recent appeal at Ryme Road, Yetminster the Inspector considered Policy SUS2 to be out-of-date however afforded significant weight to the spatial strategy set out in criterion i). The Inspector did however recognise that criterion iii) could not be afforded full weight because it “restricts development outside of the DDB” thus limiting the supply of housing. Since the housing land supply situation remains unchanged, it is considered reasonable to afford differing weight to the constituent parts of Policy SUS2 in a similar way when determining this application.

Since the councils do not have a five-year supply, consideration should be given to reducing the weight given to criterion iii) of Policy SUS2 in order to help fulfil the objectives in paragraph 47 of the NPPF when applying the ‘tilted balance’. However, as part of that judgement, it is also important to have regard to:

· the extent of the current housing land supply shortfall; and · the measures the councils are putting in place to address it.

The extent of the housing land supply shortfall in the local plan area is just 0.37 years below 5, as evidenced in the recent appeal at Ryme Road, Yetminster. The councils have also taken action to address the housing land supply shortfall not only by making progress on the Local Plan Review (which is at ‘issues and options’ stage), but also through the granting of consents on sites outside, but adjoining settlements with DDBs (i.e. at the first three tiers of the settlement hierarchy).

Affording significant weight to the spatial strategy set out in criterion i) of Policy SUS2 and having regard to the modest size of the shortfall and the positive measures the councils are taking to address it, it is considered that there is a case to resist this scheme on spatial strategy grounds, since the proposal:

· is located at a settlement at the lowest tier of the spatial hierarchy, to which development in rural areas is not directed, and · the proposal does not re-use an existing rural building but proposes open market housing.

There may also be sufficient justification to displace the presumption under the final bullet in paragraph 14 of the NPPF, if there is also some demonstrable harm, when measured against the national policies in the NPPF and against other related policies in the Local Plan.

Paragraph 15 of the NPPF sets out that local plans should set out how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally. The adopted local plan sets out the application of this presumption through Policy INT1 stating that:

“There will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. Where there are no policies relevant to an application, or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision, the following matters will be taken into account:

· The extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan; · Whether specific policies in that National Planning Policy Framework indicate that development should be restricted; and · Whether the adverse impacts of granting permission could significantly outweigh the benefits.”

The second and third bullets of policy INT1 reflect the provisions of the second part of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. However, the first bullet - to take account of the extent to which a proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the Local Plan - is an additional provision specific to the local situation. Paragraph 1.3.1 of the Local Plan identifies these strategic objectives as being “a concise expression of the priorities of this Local Plan” aimed at delivering sustainable development.

13.5 These strategic objectives are:

Support the local economy to provide for high quality, better paid jobs – it is considered that the proposal would not do this other than possibly jobs during the construction period. Meet local housing needs for all as far as is practicable – The proposal is not for an exception site entirely for affordable housing. The proposal is for 7 dwellings of which the applicant is indicating that 3 may be affordable. The applicant is suggesting that subject to the completion of a S106 agreement the properties would have their sale price restricted to an agreed percentage of the market value and would allocate to families or persons on the West Dorset Housing Register with a local connection to Litton Cheney, children attending Litton Cheney Primary School or employed in Litton Cheney or adjacent villages. The applicant has suggested a discount of 20% such that the properties could only be sold at 80% of the market price (this was suggested in an email from the agent fairly late in the consideration of the application and further discussion hasn’t taken place at this time with the applicant as to the appropriateness of that discount and whether it can be addressed to the satisfaction of all parties via a S106 agreement). It may be that a 20% discount on the open market value would not make the proposed “affordable” units genuinely affordable. However notwithstanding that the scheme would still only provide three units and the applicant hasn’t established the level of housing need in Litton Cheney to ascertain if what is proposed is justified or going any significant way to meeting local housing need. In addition if the applicant had done more work on housing need in Litton Cheney he would be able to evidence, or not as the case maybe, whether discount market housing is the most appropriate means of affordable housing for the village or whether demand exists for affordable rented or shared ownership instead.

Regenerate key areas including Weymouth and Dorchester town centres, to improve the area’s retail, arts, cultural and leisure offer; and increase employment opportunities – not considered relevant to this proposal.

Support sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities – it is considered that the development wouldn’t make any contribution to the provision of safe and healthy communities and that the future occupiers would have very limited accessibility to services and facilities other than by car.

Protect and enhance the outstanding natural and built environment, including its landscape, biodiversity and geodiversity, and the local distinctiveness of places within the area (this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are particularly sensitive to change) – the impact on the AONB, Conservation Area, setting of listed building and biodiversity will be considered in more detail below.

Reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, both by minimising the potential impacts and by adapting to those that are inevitable (this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are at the highest risk) – not considered relevant as this objective is in respect of flooding and coastal erosion which are not applicable to this site.

Provide greater opportunities to reduce car use; improve safety; ensure convenient and appropriate public transport services; and seek greater network efficiency for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians – given the size of Litton Cheney and the lack of facilities in the village, the proposal is likely to result in increased reliance on car travel.

Achieve high quality and sustainability in design, reflecting local character and distinctiveness of the area – the design of the scheme will be considered below.

13.6 In terms of the strategic objectives of the local plan and the three dimensions to sustainable development identified in the NPF: economic, social and environmental more discussion of these points will now follow.

Economic – Short term economic benefits would result from the proposal in the form of providing work for contractors and suppliers involved within the construction phase. There may be some longer term benefits by supporting local services in Litton Cheney (although these are limited anyway). As such it is not considered there would be any significant long term economic benefits to the proposed development.

Social – The proposal being for 7 dwellings would not make a significant contribution to increasing housing land supply. 4 of the dwellings would be market dwellings and 3 may fall under the definition of affordable housing so some limited contribution may be made to the provision of affordable housing. There may be limited social benefit in terms of the occupants of the dwelling supporting what local services there are in Litton Cheney.

Environmental – There are a number of environmental issues to be considered and these will be considered in turn below:

13.7 Visual impact on AONB and impact on Conservation Area and setting of the listed building:

The site is within the AONB. Most of the site is also within the Conservation Area, although the very southern part and vehicular access to the south are not. The Old Tithe Barn to the north that is outside of the application site but within the applicant’s ownership is a grade II listed building. Four of the properties to the east of the site who have gardens abutting the application site are also listed buildings.

The dwelling proposed where the derelict bull pen is currently would be accessed via the existing access track from Main Street which serves a number of existing properties, including the old tithe barn. This dwelling would be built right up to the northern boundary of the site, such that amenity space for the property would be provided to the west. A parking space would be provided on the opposite side of the track. The property would be a two bedroom dwelling constructed of stone and with a natural slate roof. Most of the openings would be to the south elevation. There would however be two openings in the north elevation in the form of rooflights to serve bedroom 1. These windows would face a paddock to the north, not in the applicant’s ownership. There would also be a door and a first floor window in the west elevation facing into the garden for the proposed property and along the track which allows access to the agricultural buildings to the west.

13.8 The other 6 dwellings proposed would all be accessed via the proposed vehicular access from the south. This access would connect to the existing vehicular access to the house at Charity Farm and would therefore pass between that house and the rear of the builder’s yard/offices adjacent to the site. On the southern part of the site there is currently a detached former agricultural building which is proposed to be removed and for which there is a separate application for listed building consent. The 6 dwellings are proposed in the form of a detached property, a terrace of three and a pair of semi’s. House A at the southern edge of the site would be detached and the walls would be render and timber board with a natural slate roof. The property would have 3 bedrooms. Houses B, C and D which would form a terrace would be three bedroom and have rendered walls above a natural stone plinth and a natural slate roof. Houses E and F which are the semi’s would also be three bedroomed and would be natural stone with a natural slate roof. It is these properties that would be closest to the listed barn to the north. All of the dwellings would have gardens to the rear and properties D, E and F would back on to the modern agricultural buildings in the yard to the rear. A total of 9 parking spaces are proposed for the 6 dwellings. The majority of these would be adjacent to the rear boundary of the gardens of the properties in Main Street, although two spaces would be provided in a new building on the eastern edge of the site which would also provide a storage area for the old tithe barn. This building is intended to resemble that to be removed and would be on a timber frame with corrugated sheeting to the walls and roof and weatherboarding to the gable end.

13.9 Also proposed for the site is a district heating plant, pellet hopper and an area of community fruit trees and vegetable plots. These would be adjacent to the boundary with the builder’s yard to the south, and neighbour’s gardens to the east and partly to the north. The pellet hopper would be a 2.4m square silo and the heating plant would be accommodated in a timber clad building with a slate roof. There would be a flue to the roof of the building.

13.10 The site is quite visually contained and whilst on the western edge of the village is seen in the context of existing buildings adjoining the site on all sides. The Council’s tree and landscape officer commented on the scheme at a pre-application stage when he said:

“I have no objection to the principle of development as proposed from either a landscape or arboricultural perspective. In terms of existing trees there is very little of note on the site, or within neighbouring gardens, so there are no significant constraints upon layout in that respect. From a landscape point of view the site also benefits from being largely enclosed by existing building and structures, and these provide a sense of containment. In addition, glimpsed views of the site from the road to the east tend to be read against the backdrop of other agricultural buildings and, similarly, views from the wider footpath network are seen against the backdrop of the builder’s yard and officers to the south of the site. In these circumstances, although there would be some impact upon the conservation area – in terms of loss of open space, I don’t consider the effect would be significant.”

The officer hasn’t commented on the application currently being considered but given the above comments and the details of what is proposed it is considered that the development of this site would have, subject to a number of conditions, an acceptable impact on the visual amenity of the AONB. Hence the development accords with Policy ENV1 of the adopted local plan and the AONB Management Plan.

13.11 The majority of the application site is within the Conservation Area and even that which isn’t impacts on its setting. It is considered that the demolition of the remainder of the former bull pen building and its replacement with a dwelling would have an acceptable impact given the appearance and materials of the existing structure and the scale, design and materials of the proposed dwelling.

The former agricultural building proposed to be demolished on the main part of the site is not considered to be of any significance in terms of its history, age, design and materials and as such its demolition is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is proposed to be replaced with a very similar building in terms of size, design and materials, but sited a little further to the east.

13.12 The dwellings would result in the loss of a currently largely undeveloped green space but this area is visually screened by existing buildings and seen in that context from what limited wider public views that exist. As such it is considered that the development of this space would not be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The development is not considered to be overdevelopment of the site. There is considered to be sufficient area to accommodate the proposal without it appearing cramped. Whilst the dwellings would not have gardens of any considerable size they would be perfectly adequate in terms of providing space for a shed, bin storage, clothes drying and amenity purposes. The mix of detached, terraced and semi-detached properties reflects what exists in the vicinity of the site.

The proposed dwellings are of a scale, design and materials which are considered appropriate to this rural village location. Details such as boundary treatments and soft landscaping could be controlled by condition should planning permission be forthcoming.

13.13 In terms of the setting of the listed barn to the north of the main part of the site the barn was granted planning permission to be converted to a unit of holiday accommodation in 2011. The Conservation Officer has commented on the proposed development and considers that the development would have an affect on the listed building but that it is acceptable impact. The officer comments that:

“the development has been kept as far away from the barn as possible. The scale and materials used for the development respects the rural nature of the area and do not detract from the setting of the barn. The site layout does not overcrowd the foreground of the main listed building.” Having regard to Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 it is considered that they are met.

13.14 Biodiversity:

The applicant has submitted a Dorset County Council Natural Environment Team approved biodiversity mitigation plan such that it can be concluded that subject to the implementation of that mitigation plan the development would have an acceptable impact on biodiversity.

13.15 Transport/Highways:

Litton Cheney does not have a defined development boundary reflecting the limited facilities that the village has. The village does have a school, public house and hall. It does not have a shop or post office. The very limited bus service that did exist from the village to Bridport has recently stopped such that there is now no bus service to and from the village. The nearest town is Dorchester and the distance and topography to Dorchester is such that someone would be unlikely to either walk or cycle to the town.

The applicant has commented on the availability of local employment to residents in the village. The CG Fry’s office and yard is immediately adjacent to the site and they are an employer. Ford Farm is relatively close to Litton Cheney but is located outside of the village, approximately 2km away. Whilst that might be within cycling distance there is no dedicated cycleway or footway to and from the village such that a person would be unlikely to walk down the narrow lanes.

Given all of the above there would be the need for the occupier of the proposed dwellings to rely on a car for access. As a consequence the proposed dwellings are not considered to be readily accessible to services and facilities.

13.16 In a recent appeal decision for two dwellings at Marshwood to the west of the district (appeal ref: APP/F1230/W/16/3146642) the Inspector commented “the village does contain some facilities such as the nearby public house as well as a school and church around 370m to the east. In terms of the distance from the site, these facilities are within walking or cycling range. However, there is not a continuous footpath or cycle lane linking the site with them. I found that vehicles driving by the junction with Bottle Lane did so at substantial speed although I did note that the B3165 is theoretically limited to 30mph at this point. Walking out of Bottle Lane along the roadside just as far as the nearby Bottle Inn required occasional standing on an informal verge which had a gulley alongside it. I didn't feel very safe when I did this because of the speed and proximity of the traffic but also because the verge is uneven. I do not consider that walking to these facilities would be very safe. Other facilities exist further away. Reference is made to a shop and garage and there are some limited bus services to nearby settlements. Hawkchurch is around 3 miles away and Axminster which is even further away. However the appellant accepts that the site would lead to further private vehicle journeys and I agree that it would inevitably do so. Whilst the site is close to some residential properties and other buildings, isolation in the context of the Framework also relates to the degree of separation from infrastructure and community facilities. Apart from the public house, the site is isolated from most day to day facilities."

The above appeal decision reinforces the point made about access to services and facilities from the application site being considered here and that the site can be considered to be isolated in the context of paragraph 55 having regard to the degree of separation from infrastructure and community facilities.

An even more recent appeal decision from May this year for a site at Yetminster (Appeal ref: APP/F1230/W/17/3168845) related to a site that was 160m from the defined development boundary at Yetminster with Yetminster having a church, hall, public house, shop, post office, school, garage, health centre and train station. That is a lot more facilities than Litton Cheney. The Inspector still concluded however that due to the lane to the village being narrow, unlit and steeply sloping at one end it would not be very safe. Also whilst the village had a number of facilities the shop was small and located on the western side of the village some distance from the site and the other facilities are also a good walk away. Whilst the railway station was nearer, access to it by pedestrians from the site is constrained by the lack of lit footways. The Inspector stated "for the above reasons I conclude that the proposed dwelling would be in an inaccessible location by sustainable modes of transport. Its occupants would be generally reliant on private vehicles in order to access employment and other day to day facilities."

Members will also be aware of the appeal decision at Land At Sherrins Farm, High Street, Sydling St Nicholas for 15 dwellings which was recommended for approval by officers but refused by Committee and allowed on appeal. That was a village that also had no defined development boundary as is the case here. In that respect the Inspector stated as regards the sustainable location of the site having regard to the Councils spatial strategy that;

· The appeal site is located in the village of Sydling St Nicholas, which does not have a defined development boundary. At the time of determining the planning application, the Council did not raise any concerns with regard to the principle of the development, based mainly on the fact that it could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and its policies that related to the supply of housing were out of date. However, since this time, the Council has adopted the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) (the LP) and the appellants have not contested the fact that the Council can now demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Although, I note that the examining Inspector of the LP has set out that the housing land supply position 'is close to the minimum required to provide choice and competition. It is therefore important that the Councils closely monitor the delivery of new dwellings and take advantage of every reasonable opportunity to improve their short term supply position, as well as the overall amount of housing for the plan period'.

· Policy SUS2 of the LP sets out the distribution of development strategy. This identifies a settlement hierarchy and settlements without a defined development boundary are the least preferred option and the policy notes that in such locations there may be some growth to meet their local needs. Policy SUS2 of the LP goes on to set out that 'outside defined development boundaries, development will be strictly controlled, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints…'. A number of acceptable development types are set out, which includes affordable housing. However, the proposal also includes open market housing, which I do not consider complies with any of the types of development listed under iii) of Policy SUS2 of the LP.

· In terms of there being a local need, the supporting text provides more clarity on this matter. This sets out that '…each village will be different in terms of its needs, opportunities and constraints. As such a more enabling approach is proposed for rural communities - working with those that want to see development take place, to help identify suitable sites to meet their local needs. Using neighbourhood development plans and other planning tools, communities can allocate sites, introduce or extend a development boundary, or develop a criteria-based policy to allow development to take place, where they consider this is the right approach for them'. At the current time, I am not aware of the preparation of a neighbourhood plan for Sydling St Nicholas or any other mechanism by which further development is being planned. The appellants have, however, set out that there is a demonstrable need for affordable housing in Sydling St Nicholas. The Council's Rural Enabling Officer has confirmed that there are over 40 households with a local connection to Sydling St Nicholas or adjacent parishes registered in affordable housing need. I accept that this is a demonstrable need for affordable housing and weighs in favour of the proposal.

· It is also important, however, to examine the level of local services and facilities available to future occupants of the proposed dwellings. The village benefits from a church, a village hall, a public house and has access to school buses. However, there is no shop, doctors, school or access to public transport. Therefore, I consider that future occupants of the open market and affordable dwellings would be entirely reliant upon a private motor vehicle for the vast majority of their day to day needs. The supporting text to Policy SUS2 of the LP sets out that the 'resulting dependency on cars would inevitably increase carbon emissions and disadvantage those who don't have a car (usually the more vulnerable groups in our society), which is why it makes sense to try to focus development at the towns'. Consequently, I consider that the lack of local services, facilities and public transport weighs against the proposal, as does the heavy reliance on a private motor vehicle. Interested parties have also set out that internet speeds are slow.

· I acknowledge that the lawful use of the appeal site could generate vehicle movements and I accept that this would to some degree off set potential carbon emissions from the heavy reliance on a private motor vehicle. However, such movements are of a different kind and were permitted before the current development plan was adopted. In addition, this matter does not address my concern with regard to the potential disadvantage and isolation that would occur to those who don't have a car, given the lack of local services and facilities for day to day needs.

· In conclusion on this matter, the provision of affordable housing is supported by Policy SUS2 in rural areas without a defined settlement boundary and there is an identified need in the local area for such accommodation. However, there is a distinct lack of local services and facilities, including public transport for the day to day needs of future occupants, who would be heavily dependant on a private motor vehicle. This runs contrary to the stated purpose of Policy SUS2 of the LP. These matters will be taken into account in the overall planning balance.

Given the above the Inspector concluded that other factors were part of the overall planning balance that led him to favour the application and the appeal was allowed with the decision concluding:

· I consider that the benefits in the social and economic dimensions, along with the environmental matters that go in favour of the scheme, as set out above, outweigh the identified harm in terms of the lack of local services, facilities and public transport, the heavy reliance on a private motor vehicle and the development plan conflict with Policy SUS2 of the LP. This is in despite of the presence of a five year housing land supply. I consider that the proposal therefore, on balance, constitutes sustainable development.

This will be a matter for Members to consider as regards this site.

13.17 The view that the site is isolated in the context of services and facilities and that occupants of the dwelling would be reliant on a car to obtain access to services and facilities is entirely consistent with the above appeal decisions.

The highway authority has no objection subject to a condition regarding the provision of the manoeuvring, parking, loading and unloading areas as shown on the approved plans prior to the occupation of the dwellings and their retention there afterwards free from obstruction.

13.18 Residential Amenity:

In terms of the dwelling proposed where the former bull pen is currently, due to the orientation of the fenestration it is considered that the development would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties as it would not result in any unacceptable overlooking. It would result in the residents of the property using the existing access track to the farm and this track runs to the front and side of other dwellings. However, given that the track already exists and serves the farm and the old tithe barn the addition of a further dwelling to its use is such that it’s not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The new access from the south from the existing track to the site would only really impact on the applicant’s own house, passing close to the side of the property. To the other side of the track is the existing builder’s premises.

13.19 The existing dwellings to the east of the site have relatively long gardens backing on to the application site. This means there would be over 40m between the east elevations of the new dwellings and the west elevations of the existing dwellings such that there would not be an unacceptable level of window to window overlooking. It is appreciated that the proposed dwellings would be at a higher level than the dwellings to the east. The new dwellings would be closer to the ends of their gardens but screening in the form of landscaping and fencing as appropriate would prevent overlooking at ground floor level. Even from the first floor windows of the new dwellings given the distances involved it is considered that the impact would not be detrimental as to warrant the refusal of the application.

The development would result in more vehicular movements and activity on the land than currently exists, although the land could currently be used for agriculture like the modern farm buildings immediately to the west of the site. However the level of activity from the six dwellings, coupled with the length of the gardens generally to the properties to the east mean that it is considered that the level of noise and activity would not be such as to be unacceptably detrimental to residential amenity.

13.20 There are two properties to the east of the site at the southern end that currently have very open boundaries with the application site. They would need to have some kind of boundary treatment erected in order that those on the application site did not look straight into their gardens at ground level. However such means of boundary treatment could be erected on the application site at no cost to the properties in question and could in fact be erected under permitted development rights regardless of whether planning permission were forthcoming or not. Therefore the concerns of those residents regarding the impact of means of enclosure on their amenity can be given very little weight.

13.21 Third parties have commented on the impact of the proposed district heating plant and pellet hopper. This would be closest to the existing builder’s yard and offices to the south of the site. Environmental health were consulted on the application and have advised they have no comments. It is considered that the impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties would be acceptable, but should planning permission be forthcoming then environmental health have separate powers under other legislation regarding noise and amenity should there be an issue in the future.

The proposed dwellings would in places only be about 11m from the agricultural buildings to the west of the site. There would be sufficient room between the rear boundary of the properties, particularly those units adjacent which are D, E and F and the modern farm buildings to landscape in order to reduce the visual impact of the barn at the end of the gardens of the new dwellings. In terms of the impact on amenity from having dwellings in such close proximity to agricultural buildings then anybody buying one of the houses would be well aware of the proximity when viewing the houses and could make their own assessment as to whether the relationship between the house and the barn suited their requirements/needs. It would be for the market to determine the desirability of the properties and presumably their market value would reflect their siting.

13.22 CIL:

The adopted charging schedule applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set at £0 per sq. m. CIL rate. The development proposal is CIL liable. The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sq. m

13.23 Other issues:

Most of the issues raised by the Parish Council and third parties have been addressed above but a few remain to be considered. Comments have been made regarding the erection of the new parking and store building prior to the commencement of any other part of the development. This is not considered necessary. A condition requiring the parking to be provided would ensure the building was erected prior to the dwellings being occupied but it is not considered necessary for it to be the first part of the scheme to be constructed. The materials for the walls and roof of the building would be controlled by a condition if planning permission were forthcoming. A third party is also seeking a condition restricting the future use of the building and that no windows be erected in the east elevation or roof slope of the building. In terms of its use the condition required by the highway authority would mean that the building had to provide the two parking spaces indicated. The other part of the building would provide storage for the tithe barn and if its use changed in the future in such a way as to amount to development that wasn’t permitted development then an application for a change of use would be required. In terms of windows and rooflights in the east elevation of the building in the future, then windows would be screened by the boundary treatment and there is no first floor within the building which would need to be served by rooflights

13.24 The existing access to the south part of the site via the tithe barn would be closed off as a result of the proposed parking and store building and the landscaping scheme.

A comment has been made regarding repairing the track that would access the dwelling replacing the former bull pen. The highway authority have no objection on highway safety grounds and the state of the track is a matter between the owner of the track and any other parties with an interest in it and is not a matter for the planning process.

14. Summary 14.1 Affording significant weight to the spatial strategy set out in criteria i) of Policy SUS2 and having regard to the modest size of the housing land supply shortfall and the positive measures that Councils are taking to address it, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the Local Plan spatial strategy since the proposal:

· Is located at a settlement at the lowest tier of the spatial hierarchy; to which development in rural areas is not directed, and · The proposal does not re-use existing rural buildings but proposes new build open market housing.

This is considered to be a significant adverse impact, as is the increase in reliance on the car to access services and facilities elsewhere. It is considered that these significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the proposal in terms of its contribution to housing land supply and possibly affordable housing. It has already been identified that there would be little in the way of economic or social benefits resulting from the proposal and that there is a conflict in terms of the adverse environmental impact from occupiers being reliant on a car to access services and facilities. As such it is considered that the proposal is not sustainable development when considered against the Local Plan spatial strategy and the policies in the NPPF as a whole. 14.2 In respect of the final bullet point in paragraph 14 of the NPPF the presumption in favour of granting planning permission can be displaced if the proposal is contrary to specific policies in the NPPF which indicate development should be restricted. The recent Supreme Court Judgement also indicated that when applying this bullet point, any proposed development should also be considered against related policies in the Local Plan, which should be given full statutory weight in decision-making.

The development proposes 7 dwellings which would be contrary to paragraph 55 of the NPPF which says that “to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as……”. The proposal is considered to represent new isolated dwellings in the countryside having regard to the lack of access to services and facilities and that it does not comply with any of the special circumstances listed in paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

14.3 In addition Policy INT1 of the adopted local plan can be given full statutory weight in the decision-making process. As already identified above the proposal is considered contrary to bullet points 2 and 3 of the policy which reflect the second part of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In addition it is considered that there is a conflict with the first bullet point which is “the extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan.”

The strategic objectives have been listed and considered in the report above. The only objective to which the development may contribute, subject to the establishing the level of housing need, agreeing an appropriate means of affordable housing provision and the completion of a S106 agreement is that some local housing needs may be met through the provision of affordable housing. In respect of the majority of objectives it would not result in any positive contribution. In respect of the objective regarding providing greater opportunities to reduce car use it would in fact conflict, given the reliance of a future occupier on a car to access employment services and facilities.

14.4 The extent to which the proposal therefore positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the Local Plan is limited with the potential gains in affordable housing cancelled out by the adverse impact in respect of the objective regarding reducing car use.

Given the above it is considered that the development does not accord with Policy INT1, Policy SUS2 and the spatial strategy in the adopted local plan. Furthermore it does not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework. 15. Recommendation 15.1 Refusal is recommended for the following reason:

1 - The proposed development, which would include open market dwellings, by reason of its location outside of a Defined Development Boundary in a village with very limited facilities and services, is considered to be unsustainable with any future occupiers being reliant on a car to access services and facilities. The proposed development fails to meet the social, economic and environmental strands of sustainability as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework and is contrary to Paragraph 55 of the Framework. The resulting benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the resulting harm as set out above. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the Councils spatial strategy for housing and contrary to policies INT1 and SUS2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015).

2 - At the time of application determination there was no Section 106 Agreement in place that satisfactorily dealt with the provision of affordable housing and in the absence of such an Agreement the proposal is contrary to Policy HOUS1 of the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan