Public Document Pack

PLANNING COMMITTEE Members of the Planning Committee are invited to attend this meeting at Durweston Village Hall, Church Road, Durweston, Blandford Forum, Dorset, DT11 0QA, to consider the items listed on the following page.

Matt Prosser Chief Executive

Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2018 Time: 10.00 am Venue: Durweston Village Hall Members of Committee: B Batty-Smith MBE (Chairman), C Dowden (Vice-Chairman), D Croney, V Fox, J Francis, N Lacey-Clarke, S Pritchard, B Ridout, Jackie Stayt, J Westbrook and P Williams MBE

USEFUL INFORMATION For more information about this agenda please telephone Sandra Deary 01258 484370 email [email protected] This agenda and reports are also available on the Council’s website at www.dorsetforyou.com/committees/ North Dorset District Council. Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting with the exception of any items listed in the exempt part of this agenda. Please note that if you attend a committee meeting and make oral representations to the committee your name, together with a summary of your comments will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The minutes, which are the formal record of the meeting, will be available to view in electronic and paper format, as a matter of public record, for a minimum of 6 years following the date of the meeting. Disabled access is available for all of the council’s committee rooms. Hearing loop facilities are available. Please speak to a Democratic Services Officer for assistance in using this facility.

Mod.gov public app now available – Download the free public app now for your iPad, Android and Windows 8.1/10 tablet from your app store. Search for Mod.gov to access agendas/ minutes and select Dorset Councils Partnership. Recording, photographing and using social media at meetings The council is committed to being open and transparent in the way it carries out its business whenever possible. Anyone can film, audio-record, take photographs, and use social media such as tweeting and blogging to report the meeting when it is open to the public, so long as they conform to the Council’s protocol, a copy of which can be obtained from the Democratic Services Team. A G E N D A Page No.

1 APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence.

2 CODE OF CONDUCT

Members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding disclosable pecuniary and other interests.

Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary or other disclosable interest

Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done within 28 days

Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item where appropriate. If the interest is non-pecuniary you may be able to stay in the room, take part and vote.

For further advice please contact Stuart Caundle, Monitoring Officer, in advance of the meeting.

3 MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee (previously circulated) as a correct record.

4 URGENT BUSINESS

To consider any items of business which the Chair has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be specified in the minutes.

5 2/2017/2016/OUT - LAND AT THE FERNS, HAZELBURY BRYAN 5 - 20

Develop land by the erection of up to 12 No. dwellings, and form vehicular accesses. (Outline application to determine access). 6 2/2018/1240/FUL - HUNTLEY DOWN, MILBORNE ST ANDREW 21 - 40

Erect 25 No. dwellings with garages, form vehicular access.

7 2/2018/0483/REM - LAND TO THE EAST OF LODDEN LAKES, NEW 41 - 62 ROAD, GILLINGHAM, DORSET

Erect 90 No. dwellings with garages, bin / cycle store, building to house electricity sub-station and associated infrastructure, including play areas and public open space. (Reserved Matters application to determine appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2014/0968/OUT).

8 2/2018/0438/FUL - LITTLE MEADOW, EAST STOUR 63 - 70

Erect replacement agricultural building and siting of polytunnel (retrospective).

9 2/2018/0952/FUL - EAST VIEW FARM, NEW ROAD, BOURTON, 71 - 78 GILLINGHAM

Erect 1 No. dwelling, form vehicular access.

10 2/2018/1005/HOUSE - 15 PARSONS POOL, SHAFTESBURY 79 - 84

Erect 1 No. single storey extension.

11 PLANNING APPEALS 85 - 86

To note the report (attached) of Head of Planning Development Management and Building Control on Planning Appeals. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

Hazelbury Bryan

Application Type: Outline Application Application No: 2/2017/2016/OUT

Applicant: Messrs D and A Williamson-Jones Case Officer: Ms Clare McCarthy

Recommendation Summary: Approve

Location: Land At, The Ferns, Military Lane, Kingston, Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset,

Proposal: Develop land by the erection of up to 12 No. dwellings, and form vehicular accesses. (Outline application to determine access).

Reason for Committee Decision:

This application is going before Committee as the recommendation for approval is contrary to the comments of the Parish Council.

Planning policy and guidance:

Policy 1 - Sustainable Development Policy 2 - C Spatial Strategy Policy 3 -Climate Change Policy 4 - The Natural Environment. Policy 6 - Housing Distribution Policy 7 - Delivering Homes Policy 8 - Affordable Housing Policy 13 - Grey Infrastructure. Policy 14 - Social Infrastructure Policy 15 - Green Infrastructure Policy 20 - The Countryside Policy 23 - Parking Policy 24 - Design Policy 25 - Amenity

North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan to 2003- 2011 Saved Policies in the 2003 - 2011 Local Plan which remain valid are:

Policy 1.8 – Development within Settlement boundary Policy 1.9 - Important Open or Wooded Areas

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018:

The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a planning application conflicts

Page 5 with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.

The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions.

Where a 5-year supply of housing land cannot be demonstrated paragraph 11d i) and ii) of the Framework outlines the implications for how development proposals should be determined. It 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.

The relevant sections pertaining to this application are:

Section 2. "Achieving sustainable development" Section 5 'delivering a sufficient supply of homes' Section 11 'Making effective use of land' Section 12 'Achieving well designed places' Section 14 "Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change" Section 15- "Conserving and enhancing the natural environment"

Section 4. Decision taking: Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

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.

Description of Site:

The site is located immediately outside of, but adjacent to the settlement boundary of Hazelbury Bryan. It has an area of 0.98 hectares and consists of agricultural land enclosed by hedgerow, with some young trees to the north-east, north-west and south-western boundaries. To the south-east of the site is the remainder of the agricultural field and the former chicken shed buildings associated with 'The Ferns'. There are no special designations, in terms of landscape and conservation, associated with the site.

The site currently has an access onto Back Lane.

Page 6

Hazelbury Bryan is located approximately 5 km south west of Sturminster Newton, 13km west of Blandford Forum and 18km north of Dorchester. This circular village broadly takes the form of a linear ribbon development, with open space at its centre. It is served by a network of classified roads with access to the strategic highway network 3km to the west onto the B3143 and 4km to the north onto the A357.

The application site is located in Kingston. Kingston and Wonston are the two largest hamlets of Hazelbury Bryan. Pidney, the central hamlet, is where the village hall, recreation ground, local shop and public house are located, whilst the school and church are situated in the south eastern and smaller hamlet of Droop. The other smaller hamlets are, Parkgate and Woodrow. Collectively the Parish was recorded to have 480 dwellings and a population of 1,059 in the 2011 Census.

The site is bound by Military Lane to the north-east and Kingston Lane to the north-west but has no existing access onto them. These Lanes have ribbon development of modern post-war detached houses on the opposite side of the road. Beyond the two lanes and to south west is existing residential development, resulting in the site sitting within the context of residential development on 3 of its 4 boundaries. It is located within the Northern Scarp Hills Landscape Character Area; defined by foothills at the base of the chalk escarpment resulting in a relatively contained and secluded site with limited wider views.

Kingston has a mixture of housing types and styles reflecting different periods of development and growth. There are examples of post war development such as The Green, as well as more modern estate development at Wheat Close. Older dwellings in the village core range from brick construction to coursed rubble, cob and some thatched roofs. Directly opposite and adjacent to the application site the dwellings are detached and of modern construction of brick and render with tiled or slate roofs.

Constraints:

Agricultural Land Grade: Grade 3 Parish Name: Hazelbury Bryan CP Settlement Boundary - Name: Hazelbury Bryan Ward Name: Lydden Vale Ward

Consultations:

Hazelbury Bryan Parish Council has raised the following concerns and objections:

This site came forward for consideration under Hazelbury Bryan's emerging Neighbourhood Plan (NP). In North Dorset District Council's Local Plan the background to Policy 1 says in 3.7 that "material consideration in any planning decision may include draft or emerging....Neighbourhood Plans”.

Policy 2 says "development will be more strictly controlled with an emphasis on more local and essential rural needs". We are well underway in the production of our Neighbourhood Plan.

After three rounds of public consultations over the last 18 months our emerging NP has a clear policies on site allocations and the size and type of development needed and wanted in response to community feedback. This application is contrary to policies in the emerging NP.

Policy HB15 in the NP identifies a local housing need of between 45 - 52 dwellings until 2031. Taking account of existing consents the requirement for new sites is reduced to 18 - 25 dwellings

The applicant initially engaged in the NP process. As mentioned in the Design and Access Report the site did not score highly in the community consultation.

Page 7

The failure of NDDC to have a 5 year supply of development land is being used to argue that this development should be allowed. We believe that the shortage of supply is a strategic matter for NDDC and the strategic development sites of Blandford, Sturminster Newton, Gillingham and Shaftesbury should remain the focus for larger development. There is no indication that the target of 825 dwellings for the rural, sustainable villages like Hazelbury Bryan should be significantly impacted. For the rural villages the policy should continue to be to meet local need only.

…Once the NP reaches the site allocation stage, if developers whose sites are not preferred are allowed to jump the allocation "queue" then why should any landowner or developer engage with NP groups and play by the rules? It sets a precedent for others to follow. Sites may be acceptable in planning terms, but in a community like Hazelbury Bryan there was a potential supply (from the SHLAA and our Call for Sites) of 200 dwellings - might all these now have to be approved despite a local housing need of 18 - 25? What message does this send to communities and volunteers working on NPs?

The site is outside the current and proposed Settlement Boundaries and the application should be rejected. It must go to planning committee if officer recommends approval.

The parish council objected to the original application and that objection remains.

The council acknowledges and welcomes the increase in number of homes to 12 should this application be approved, as it will deliver an element of affordable housing.

Dorset County Council - Highways

No objections subject to conditions and informative notes being attached to any planning permission granted.

The likely impact of additional vehicle movements from the new dwellings will be minimal in the AM and PM peak hours and cannot be thought to be "severe", when consideration is given to paragraphs 29 to 36 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

I appreciate local concerns regarding the lack of footways in the immediate vicinity of the site but this is typical of a rural area and don't feel that the provision of a new footway along the site's frontage with the D31817 would be appropriate, in visual terms, or necessary in safety terms.

Drainage (Flood Risk Management) - DCC

No objection subject to conditions.

Following submission of Ground investigation Report and Correspondence with agent and Revised illustrative site layout plan ref: 1246.01 Rev A, DCC Local Flood Authority , withdraw previous objection subject to planning conditions and informative note.

Wessex Water Consulted on the 24 January 2018, there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

DCP - Technical Services

No objections subject to conditions.

Dorset County Council - Education

In the absence of CIL, the Local Authority would look to secure through reasonable and directly related mitigation through a S106 agreement at £6094.00 per dwelling.

Page 8

Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group - Healthcare

DCCG will not be seeking any contribution towards healthcare provision from this development.

Senior Landscape Officer - NDDC

No objections subject to conditions.

Senior Conservation Officer - NDDC

No objections

North Dorset Planning Policy No Objection

The proposed development is contrary to Policy 2, Policy 6 and Policy 20 of the LPP1. Nevertheless, as set out above the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and as a result paragraph 14 of the NPPF is engaged in respect of considering the proposed development. Given the extent of the existing housing shortfall in North Dorset, and the fact that there isn't currently an oversupply of housing in the countryside (including Stalbridge and the eighteen larger villages), when considered individually there is no basis for refusing the proposed developments planning permission on the grounds that they are contrary to Policy 2, Policy 6 or Policy 20 of the LPP1.

In terms of paragraph 14 of the NPPF the case officer will need to consider if there are specific policies in the NPPF that indicate that development should be restricted in respect of the proposals. Furthermore, the case officer will need to consider whether any of the proposals should be refused planning permission on the basis of other material planning considerations. It should be noted that the Hazelbury Bryan pre-submission draft neighbourhood plan is currently being consulted on and this includes proposed residential allocations, little weight however can be given to this, as set out in PPG Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 41-007-20170728, and also to background evidence documents produced to date.

In reaching this view the case officer will need to determine, in line with paragraph 14 of the NPPF, whether any adverse impacts resulting from any of the proposals would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. The case officer should also consider whether there is a basis for any of the proposals being refused planning permission on the grounds of the scale of the growth that would result at Hazelbury Bryan especially given the aim of the spatial strategy set out in LPP1 to focus development at the four main towns within the District and the fact that the focus of development at Stalbridge and the eighteen larger villages, including Hazelbury Bryan, should be on meeting local and essential rural needs. It could be considered that the scale of the growth that would result from all (or a number) of the proposals being granted planning permission would be inappropriate at Hazelbury Bryan.

It is of note that the main reason that there is no objection to the proposed developments (when considered individually) on the grounds of Policy 2, Policy 6 or Policy 20 in LPP1 is because the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Consequently, if some, or all, of the proposals were granted outline planning permission, it is considered important that the developments are brought forward on the site as quickly as possible to address the existing shortfall. Therefore, consideration should be given to the conditions regarding the submission of reserved matters that may be applied to the proposals if they are granted outline planning permission. Reducing the amount of time for the submission of reserved matters from three years to two years may help to accelerate the speed at which development is brought forward on the sites.

Representations:

9 letters of representation were received, of which 2 offered comments which neither supported nor objected to the proposal, 6 objected to the proposal and 1 supported the proposal.

Page 9

Concerns raised relate to:

 Extra traffic strain on village road network of Silly Hill, Kingston Lane, Kingston Cross and Military Lane, all single car width will significantly increase traffic and likelihood of injury to pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and drivers.  No local infrastructure and amenities, bus limited, shop 20 minute walk, no footpaths, bends, no street lights.  Access would be better from Back Lane  Impact on existing accesses poor visibility and concealed entrances  Effect on the Appearance of Area  Heritage  Landscape -Loss of hedgerow and wildlife  Local or Government Policy outside settlement boundary  Not an allocated site in Neighbourhood Plan  Concerns about contaminated land from former chicken farm adjacent

Support

 It meets all 5 of the Neighbourhood Planning Committee's criteria for suitability in their Site Assessments.

Relevant Planning History:

Planning application (2/2017/1554/FUL) was approved on 9th February 2018 by North Dorset District Council (NDDC) at 'The Ferns' for the change of use of a former broiler house to storage (class B8) and create 15 no. parking spaces. This relates to the use of this former chicken farm as Hunts Foods warehouse and distribution.

Planning Appraisal: The application seeks outline planning permission for the development of the agricultural land for the erection of up to 12 No. dwellings and the formation of 5 new vehicular accesses onto Kingston Lane. This would establish the principle of development and details of the access.

Matters of scale, layout, appearance and landscaping are all reserved for consideration at a later date.

Indicative plans of layout and landscaping demonstrate how the development could be delivered on site.

The main planning considerations that need to be addressed in this instance are:

 Ensuring an adequate 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites  Affordable Housing  Access, Highway impacts, parking and sustainable transport improvements  Flood Risk and Drainage  Impact on Landscape  Impact on Heritage  Other issues raised by representations  Infrastructure provision  The Planning Balance  Conclusion

Page 10

Ensuring an adequate supply of deliverable housing sites (five year supply)

Local Authorities are tasked to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites, known as housing land supply.

The NPPF's advice has also changed and now has a stricter requirement in terms of the delivery of housing within 5 years in that conditions can now be applied to planning permissions that require development to begin within a shorter time-scale than the relevant (three year) default time period. (See paragraph 76).

A lack of a five year supply or evidence of persistent under delivery can make it much more difficult to defend speculative development proposals in both the towns and villages. Currently North Dorset District Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. In this situation the relevant policies for the supply of housing must be treated as out-of-date. It is important that the Council maintains a supply of housing land to meet the needs within the district

The four main towns of Blandford Forum; Gillingham; Shaftesbury and Sturminster Newton, plus the 18 larger villages, including Hazelbury Bryan, are identified in the local plan as suitable locations to accommodate housing needs within their settlement boundaries.

The Council should therefore now apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development and grant planning permission for housing development in the larger villages, such as Hazelbury Bryan, which are considered to be sustainable locations for local needs development. Now therefore, given the housing policies in the Local Plan are deemed to be out of date, the larger villages will also need to meet a proportion of strategic needs, unless any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits,

The Parish of Hazelbury Bryan, including Kingston has been identified as a larger village capable of meeting local needs housing within its settlement boundary.

Given the shortage of housing supply to meet strategic and local needs currently with North Dorset, this site now also falls for consideration under the tilted balance weighting exercise, which prioritises the need to boost the housing supply. This means that the fact that it lies outside the settlement boundary cannot in itself form a reason for refusal.

Furthermore, due to its location beyond any landscape or conservation designations that would trigger specific policies in the NPPF that seek to restrict development, again the weighting of balance would fall more towards the delivery of housing than environmental constraints.

Given the housing need, the lack of environmental constraints and the position of the site alongside the settlement boundary which is now an out of date policy designation, the site is considered to be a sustainable location. This is because the site is as close as other dwellings in the parish to all the village amenities such as public house, shop, school, village hall, play area, allotments and churches. The fact that Hazelbury Bryan is defined as a larger village indicates in itself that the location is considered to be sustainable for the resident community.

Affordable Housing

The applicant is offering 40% of the units on site towards affordable housing - tenure split to be agreed - usually, comprising 70% affordable rent and 30% intermediate housing at this outline stage. This is a policy compliant contribution of 4 dwellings for local needs within the Parish and is considered reasonable and acceptable.

Access, Highway Safety Impact and Sustainable Transport improvements

Page 11

DCC highways has raised no objection, subject conditions and informative notes to the insertion of 5 accesses to serve up to 12 dwellings which mirrors the situation on the opposite side of the road where individual accesses feed onto Kingston Lane. The accesses are considered to be safe, with appropriate visibility; and without undue traffic generation onto the country lane, given the limited number of dwellings proposed.

Foul and Surface Water Drainage

There is a foul sewer to the west of the application site to which the development can connect following agreement with Wessex Water, as confirmed by Wessex Water's plan. This element of the application demonstrates it is a sustainable location, as it can connect to an existing shared sewerage system.

The surface water drainage strategy was presented to Dorset Lead Flood Authority who are now satisfied that a surface water drainage strategy and maintenance plan can be achieved for the site and therefore they have no objection, subject to conditions and an informative note.

Impact on Landscape

The site lies within the Rolling Clay Vale Landscape Character Area: Key land management guidance notes for the Clay vale landscape type are as follows:

 Soften the impact of hard urban edges such as at Hazelbury Bryan. e.g. using small-scale broadleaved native woodlands and/or natural regeneration.  Conserve and enhance any streams, ponds and marsh areas in the escarpment foothills.  Any new planting should reflect the existing varied visual structure of woods, copses, hedges and trees.

Due to the lack of any visual harm to wider views and the planting of new hedgerows, coupled with landscape enhancement offered in mitigation, the overall landscape impacts of the development proposal are considered to be acceptable and comply with the provisions of Adopted Local Plan Policy 4.

Impact on Ecology

The Biodiversity Mitigation Plan submitted by the applicant has been certified by the DCC Natural Environment Team. It proposes replacement apple trees for badger foraging and hazel hedgerows at the rear to replace that lost from the front hedgerow. Proposed external lighting on dwellings is required to be in the form of downlights and directed away from hedgerows. No external lighting will be permitted to the parking area.

Bat tubes are to be placed in four dwellings to encourage roosting. Four bird boxes are to be placed in hedgerows for declining house sparrow species. Nest boxes for dormice and hedgehogs are also to be inserted in hedgerows. Water butts to dwellings are also to be provided to all dwellings to support planting.

Impact on Trees

No tree survey or arboricultural method statement has been produced with the application, given the lack of trees on the site. The one existing tree in the north east hedgerow can be adequately

Page 12 protected through the production of an Arboricultural method statement with the submission of a reserved matters application.

The proposals have been assessed by the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer. The proposals are considered acceptable. The Tree and Landscape Officer raises no objection subject to tree and landscaping conditions. This is because there are no trees of significance on the site and the only juvenile trees are in the hedgerows and are not protected by a preservation order.

Impact on Archaeology

The County archaeologist has raised no objection in respect of Archaeology.

Impact on Heritage Assets:

There are three listed cottages in the village core of Kingston, the nearest of which at 150metres distance is too far removed for the development to have any impact on the historic character or setting of them. However, it is worth noting the materials used in their construction to ensure that these materials are referenced in the selection proposed for the development.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity

The proposed housing development is unlikely to generate harmful levels of noise and disturbance that would significantly affect the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring residential properties within itself.

During the construction phase of the proposed development, there would inevitably be some adverse impact on neighbouring occupiers, by way of disturbance. However, a construction management plan condition could be imposed on any permission issued to ensure that any such disturbance is kept to a minimum. Such disturbance would also be transitory and, as such, it is not considered that the disturbance would be significant enough to warrant refusal of the scheme.

Therefore, subject to a construction management plan condition, a satisfactory detailed design at the reserved matters stage, and notwithstanding local concern, the proposal is considered to have no significant adverse impact on residential amenity in compliance with Policy 25 of the LPP1.

Infrastructure Provision via S.106:

The Heads of Terms relate to the provision of Affordable Housing plus contributions towards (inter alia) Primary and Secondary Education provision , Highways; Open Space; and, Social infrastructure in line with Grey Green and Community Infrastructure Policy. The applicant acknowledges that increasing the number of units to require an affordable housing contribution provides greater weight to the benefits when considering the planning balance and are therefore was prepared to increase the maximum number of dwellings on the site from 10 to 12. The need for affordable housing throughout North Dorset is great and therefore even a small contribution from a small site will boost the mix of tenure available in the rural areas.

A list of the proposed grey (highway and footpaths) Green (open space and play) infrastructure and community contributions, which have been negotiated in consultation with the Parish Council, are attached at Appendix 1 to this report.

The S106 Agreement to secure these contributions for improved infrastructure and community benefits is being prepared in draft at present. The proposed contributions are considered to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate and thereby meet the regulations for Community Infrastructure Levy.

Page 13

Other issues raised by representations

The primary concern expressed by several objection comments from local residents is the impact of the extra vehicles on the safety to pedestrians, horses, and cyclists on Kingston Lane, given its narrow width.

One resident suggested the use of wider road of Back Lane to access the application site. However, that is a considerable distance from the application site and not under consideration of this application.

The accesses proposed for this development mirror the form of accesses for individual dwellings on the opposite side of Kingston Lane and meet the requirements for visibility and safety required by the relevant Highways Guidance.

In terms of residential amenity, it is considered that the noise and disturbance from the additional traffic will not be harmful, given the distance between properties on the other side of Kingston Lane with good sized front gardens.

The Planning Balance:

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 within the Local Plan, Part 1 are not currently considered up-to-date. This include the emerging HB Neighbourhood Plan.

There is a shortfall in Housing Numbers in respect of the supply of land for Housing within the District. As a result the planning balance is tilted in favour of development as per the NPPF). However, the NPPF indicates that site specific issues can, where proven, outweigh the balance towards the presumption in favour of development.

In this case, Officers consider that the proposed development weighs in favour of approval because the site sits alongside a dwelling and opposite a ribbon development of housing on the opposite side of the road, immediately adjoining the settlement boundary. Collectively the hamlets making up the settlement of Hazelbury Bryan are well serviced by infrastructure. It is a rural settlement and therefore there is a 20-40 minute walk to some facilities but like all other housing in this settlement, the shop, public house, school , churches and village hall, play area, allotments and playing fields are all within a short drive or cycle, and cars are the most common means of transport to facilities in this settlement.

An increase in housing can be accommodated in this settlement and has been identified as possible for local needs. The local needs quantity has not yet been exceeded for Hazelbury Bryan and will not be exceeded by this small increase of 12 dwellings.

The increase will also serve to boost both affordable and open market housing supply in the district. It would also support the viability of the community facilities, ensuring the settlement of Hazelbury Bryan remains a sustainable residential community and location for housing.

The proposal would contribute towards the delivery of housing in the District, a factor that should carry significant weight in the planning balance.

The site is unconstrained for development purposes with very limited identifiable adverse impacts associated with its development.

Page 14

The site is well contained with limited visibility in the wider area and would therefore have a minor impact on the rural character of the immediate locality and very limited impact on the wider landscape character.

The application is supported by assessments and reports that demonstrate that the application is technically and environmentally acceptable.

Whilst the village facilities in neighbouring hamlets are not readily accessible by foot they can be reached by bicycle, a sustainable mode of transport.

Whilst the application site is located outside of the settlement boundary of Kingston it is immediately adjacent to it and bound by existing residential properties in three directions.

The development of the site would be respectful of the ribbon character that exists in the locality and would represent a sensitive and logical extension to the envelope of Kingston.

The benefits of the scheme in boosting housing supply has been attributed significant weight in the overall balancing exercise in terms of the economic and socials roles that comprise sustainable development.

This is a sustainable location for new housing and in the absence of any significant adverse impacts that demonstrably outweigh the benefits, the proposal is recommended to Members favourably.

Conclusion:

Overall, the additional supply of housing and the provision of public benefits to Hazelbury Bryan override the material policy considerations, in the context of the planning balance. It is the opinion of your Officers, having regard to the details set out in this report, that the proposal represents a sustainable form of development, with benefits that outweigh the harm that would arise as a result. The application therefore receives a recommendation for approval.

Recommendation:

Subject to the completion of the section 106 legal agreement to secure off-site contributions and affordable housing, grant conditional approval.

Conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:- (i) the expiration of three years from the date of grant of outline planning permission, or (ii) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter 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. Application for approval of any reserved matters must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of two years beginning with the date of this permission and the development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved

Reason: This condition with shortened timeframe, normally imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), seeks to encourage development, due to the pressing

Page 15 need for housing to be provided in a short timeframe, within an area where housing land supply is not currently being met.

3. Application for Approval of the reserved matters (that is any matters in respect of which details have not been given in the application and which concern the layout, scale or appearance of the building(s) to which this permission and the application relates or the landscaping of the site) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced, and such development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

4. Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Site Location Plan Drawing No: 1246.00 Proposed Access Layout Drawing No: 1246.01A

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify the permission.

5. Access details to be submitted A scheme showing precise details of the means of access to the site must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme requires approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme must be constructed before the development is occupied or utilised.

Reason: To ensure that a suitable vehicular access is provided.

6. Multiple vehicle crossings construction Before the development is occupied or utilised the first 5.00 metres of each vehicular access, measured from the rear edge of the highway (excluding the vehicle crossing - see the Informative Note below), must be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that a suitably surfaced and constructed access to the site is provided that prevents loose material being dragged and/or deposited onto the adjacent carriageway causing a safety hazard.

7. Turning and parking scheme details to be submitted

Prior to occupation of any dwelling herreby approved a scheme showing precise details of how the turning space, garaging and parking will be provided must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme requires approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme must be constructed before the development is occupied or utilised and, thereafter, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

8. Cycle parking scheme to be submitted

Prior to occupation of any dwelling herreby approved a scheme showing precise details of the proposed cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme requires approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme

Page 16 must be constructed before the development is commenced and, thereafter, must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purpose specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper construction of the parking facilities and to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes.

9. Visibility splay scheme to be submitted Before the development commences a scheme showing precise details for the provision of visibility splays at the proposed accesses to the site must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme requires approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme must be constructed before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied or is brought into use and will require the visibility splays to be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.6 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway and must thereafter be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.

Reason: To ensure that a vehicle can see or be seen when exiting the access.

10. Construction method statement to be submitted Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised a Construction Method Statement (CMS) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMS must include: o the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors o loading and unloading of plant and materials o storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development o delivery, demolition and construction working hours The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

Reason: to minimise the likely impact of construction traffic on the surrounding highway network.

11. Surface Water Management Scheme

Prior to any building works on site details of surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, and including due consideration of the construction phase, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, and to improve water quality.

12. Maintenance of Surface water Management Scheme Prior to any building works on site details of 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 approved 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 the increased risk of flooding.

13. Hedgerow protection Existing hedgerows should be protected with appropriate British Standard protective fencing and retained throughout the construction period. Nothing shall be stored inside the fenced area during the construction of the development and the fencing shall be retained until all construction works have been completed.

Page 17

Reason: To ensure the development is integrated into the existing landscape and to screen the development in views from the wider landscape.

14. Biodiversity Mitigation

Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved all the measures set out in the Biodiversity Mitigation Plan submitted by Karl Forkasiewicz (KFJ Consulting Ltd) dated 18 December 2017, as certified by Dorset County Council Natural Environment Team, has been implemented in full.

Reason: To ensure that the development conserves and enhance biodiversity in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

15. Hard landscaping details

Prior to occupation of any dwelling herreby approved, a scheme indicating the positions, design, materials and type of hard landscaping and boundary treatments shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation. The agreed scheme shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.

16. The submission of reserved matters for housing design shall reflect a palette of materials that are prevalent in other buildings in the core of Kingston such as, coursed stone rubble, or brick and slate roofs or clay tiles, along with dry layered course stone walls or hedges to mark boundaries.

Reason: To ensure provision of a high quality mixed housing development across the site in the interests of good design and to reflect the local distinctiveness of this rural settlement.

17. Broadband technology

Prior to occupation of any dwelling herreby approved a scheme for facilitating infrastructure to support superfast broadband technology to serve the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include a timetable for implementation, including triggers for a phased implementation if appropriate, Thereafter, the development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the utilities service infrastructure is sufficient to meet the extra demands imposed by this development.

18. As part of the layout design for the first reserved matters application, a lighting and signage strategy shall be provided to satisfy transport and biodiversity requirements for the development as a whole. The approved lighting and signage strategy shall then be implemented prior to first occupation within the phase of development to which it relates, and maintained and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and protection of wildlife.

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)

Page 18

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:

Page 19

LOCATION PLAN 2/2017/2016/OUT

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping w ith the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crow n Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. North Dorset District Council LA Licence Number LA078778

Page 20 Agenda Item 6

Milborne St. Andrew

Application Type: Full Application Application No: 2/2018/1240/FUL

Applicant: Lewis Wyatt (Construction) Case Officer: Mr Robert Lennis Ltd

Recommendation Summary: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 to secure affordable housing, and other necessary off-site contributions.

Location: Huntley Down, Milborne St Andrew, DT11 0LN

Proposal: Erect 25 No. dwellings with garages, form vehicular access.

Reason for Committee Decision:

The Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control) after consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, the Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee and the Ward Member(s) considers this is a matter which ought to be referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

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 6 - Housing Distribution Policy 7 - Delivering Homes Policy 8 - Affordable Housing Policy 11 - The Economy Policy 13 - Grey Infra. Policy 14 - Social Infra. Policy 15 - Green Infra. Policy 20 - The Countryside Policy 23 - Parking Policy 24 - Design Policy 25 - Amenity Policy 27 - Comm. Facilities

Page 21

National Planning Policy Framework:

The following sections are considered to be most relevant:

1. Introduction 2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Description of Site:

The application site is 1 hectare (2.47acres) of arable land located on the north western edge of Milborne St. Andrew. It consists of agricultural land rising to the west and accessed from the existing residential street Huntley Down. The site is generally used as pastureland with a site slope upwards from the south eastern edge to the north-west with a gradient averaging at 10%. The high point in the north west reaches 94.8m with the low point in the south east at 84.6m. Existing tree cover is located around the perimeter of the site. A strong line of Poplars are located just beyond the western edge. The south edge has a relative dense hedge and some isolated trees consisting primarily of Ash and Poplars trees.

The site is bordered by dwellings on three sides. South of the site properties located on Bladen View are suburban in character with front gardens combined and open space creating a green feel to the development. Parking is predominantly accommodated on plot through side driveways with garages located towards the rear of the property.

North of the site along Coles Lane the built line follows a more organic pattern fronting and siding the Lane. Where dwellings are occasionally positioned closer to the street, smaller front gardens are offset by areas of informal public spaces helping to maintain a green feel to the lane. Breaks in the built line are punctuated by glimpsed views towards small courtyard clusters located beyond and accessed from the lane. The use of flint details and the occasional thatch roof presents a more rural and village character.

To the east, Huntley Down provides the access route to the site. The route is characterised by larger, properties stepping up the slope with some properties clustered around small cul-de-sacs. The properties are typically set back from the route with side or front gardens bringing greenery to the street scene. On-plot parking is provided through private driveways and integral / detached garages. Character detailing is provided by the use of flint and brick in the façades.

Description of proposal

The proposed development is for 25 new homes, including 10 affordable homes. This is a full planning permission, providing all details of the proposed development, including the design, layout and appearance of each of the proposed homes. Access to the

Page 22 development site would come by an extension of the road and footways from Huntley Down.

Constraints:

Agricultural Land Grade - 3 Heathland Consultation Area Parish Name - Milborne St. Andrew CP Settlement Boundary - Name: Milborne St Andrew Ward Name - Abbey Ward

Consultations:

Abbey Ward Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Transport Development Management - DCC Consulted on the 13 September 2018, their comments dated 26 September 2018 are as follows:

No objections subject to conditions.

In particular, DCC as Local Highway Authority has noted that car parking has been provided in accordance with the recommendations of the Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset Residential Car Parking Study with a total of 70 spaces proposed. These spaces have been presented as a mix of on-plot, within courtyards and on-street visitor parking. All garages have been designed with internal dimensions of 3m by 6m, to ensure that they are large enough to practically accommodate cars.

Given the low traffic generation and the fact that a review of personal injury collision data has not identified any critical locations on the local highway network with poor collision records, the proposed development is acceptable in both traffic generation and safety terms.

Conservation Officer South - NDDC Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - their comments dated 5 October 2018 are as follows:

No objections.

Natural England Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - their comments dated 26 September 2018 are as follows:

No objection, subject to securing heathland avoidance/mitigation contributions.

Milborne St Andrew PC Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - their comments dated 12 October 2018 are as follows:

Page 23

The Neighbourhood Plan Group for Milborne St Andrew has commented on behalf of the parish council. They have raised objections related to the following issues: - no housing shortfall with regard to Stalbridge and the villages; - parking provision; - flood risk; - housing mix; - green spaces are substandard; - layout of affordable housing; - proposed planning contributions not taking account of local needs.

Environment Agency Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - their comments dated 23 October 2018 are as follows:

The proposal falls outside of the Environment Agency's consultation checklist. As such, no objections have been raised by the EA.

Tree Officer Majors Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Planning Policy Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Planning Obligations Manager - DCC Consulted on the 13 September 2018, their comments dated 1 October 2018 are as follows:

No objections subject to education contributions being secured.

Dorset Education Authority - DCC Consulted on the 13 September 2018, their comments dated 28 September 2018 are as follows:

No objections subject to securing financial contributions. In summary the development generates a total of 9 children across the First, Middle and Upper School phases and based on the DCC agreed methodology, a total of £140,170 will be sought by way of a site specific contribution.

Wessex Water Consulted on the 13 September 2018 – there comments dated 26 October 2018 are as follows:

No objection subject to conditions. Foul and surface water must be drained separately from this site.

Dorset Police - Architectural Liaison Officer Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Page 24

County Archaeological Office - DCC Consulted on the 13 September 2018, their comments dated 2 October 2018 are as follows:

No objections.

Drainage (Flood Risk Management) - DCC Consulted on the 13 September 2018, their comments dated 3 October 2018 are as follows:

No objections subject to conditions.

Dorset Waste Partnership Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Urban Design Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Landscape Architect Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Principal Technical Officer NDDC Consulted on the 13 September 2018, their comments dated 3 October 2018 are as follows:

No objection subject to conditions.

Dorset Fire And Rescue Service Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Housing Enabling Team Consulted on the 13 September 2018, their comments dated 21 September 2018 are as follows:

No objections.

In particular, this application meets the policy requirement of 40% affordable housing on site in this location. There are currently 940 households on the North Dorset Housing Register, of these 13 have a local connection with Milborne St Andrew. Therefore the affordable housing on this site will help to meet an identified need.

The affordable homes are located around the site and designed to fit in with the market homes. The location of the affordable homes is an improvement on the previous application on this site and helps to ensure a sustainable and balanced community.

In summary the affordable housing on this site will assist in meeting local housing need.

Page 25

NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group Consulted on the 13 September 2018 - There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

NHS Dorset Consulted on the 13 September 2018- There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Commercial Housing Enabler Consulted on the 13 September 2018- There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Representations:

25 letters of representation were received, of which 2 offered comments which neither supported nor objected to the proposal, 22 objected to the proposal and 1 supported the proposal.

The representations received raise the following concerns or objections: - Policy - Design - Density - Effect on the Appearance of Area - Height - Impact on Access - Noise/Disturbance - Residential Amenity impact - Impact on Light - Overlooking/Loss of Privacy - Not enough parking - Traffic or Highways impact - Road safety - junction at Milton Road - Biodiversity/Loss of habitat for wildlife - Layout generally including location of affordable homes

One letter in support has been received noting: - Design - Economic Benefits - Effect on the Appearance of Area - Local policy - Layout generally including location of affordable homes - restricted in agricultural use due to being surrounded by housing.

Relevant Planning History:

Application: 2/2017/1871/FUL Proposal: Erect 30 No. dwellings with garages, form vehicular access. Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25.07.2018

Page 26

This application is now the matter of an outstanding appeal:

Appeal ref: APP/N1215/W/18/3210703

Planning Appraisal:

Members may recall this site was the subject of an application to build 30no. dwellings within the past year (planning ref: 2/2017/1871/FUL). That application was refused for the following reasons:

- The proposed layout would result in a density that does not reflect the loose knit and spacious characteristics of the settlement pattern in this edge of village location. Furthermore, the layout fails to adequately intergrade the affordable housing into the layout and the tenures can be clearly told apart and are clearly distinguishable from the market housing contrary to Policies 7, 8, and 24 of the adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (January 2016).

- The proposed development would result in the levels of amenity currently enjoyed by dwellings adjoining the site being adversely impacted by reason of layout, siting, and scale of the proposed dwellings on rising ground contrary to Policy 25 of the adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (January 2016).

This application seeks to address those reasons for refusal.

The main issues of case are considered to relate to: * Layout and density * Amenity * Status of the neighbourhood plan * Principle of development * Design * Impact on landscape and trees * Impact on ecology * Risk of flooding and pollution * Highway safety and traffic generation * Affordable Housing * Planning contributions * Other material planning issues * Planning balance

Layout and density

The proposed development would have a density of 25 units/hectare. The existing development along Huntley Down has a density of 21 u/h, Coles Lane has a density of 27 u/h, and Bladen View a density of 20 u/h. In this context the proposal is considered to be in keeping the character of the area.

In respect of the layout and integration of affordable homes, the proposal is considered to be policy compliant. The ten affordable homes would be on plots 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. Their distribution within the site seeks to create a mixed community and has been informed through the design process to ensure they are capable of being

Page 27 effectively managed and maintained by a registered provider and to ensure that the smaller homes are provided with a sufficient number of car parking spaces. It is for that latter reason that a cluster with associated parking area is provided to the north of the site.

It is considered that the affordable homes are located around the site and designed to fit in with the market homes. The location of the affordable homes is an improvement on the previous application on this site and helps to ensure a sustainable and balanced community.

Amenity

To address concerns previously raise about amenity, the layout and siting of the homes has been revised to provide greater distance between existing and proposed homes and buffer planting. In particular, to the south east of the site, this has been achieved between plots 4, 5 and 6 and the neighbouring dwellings of Bladen View and Huntley Down.

Similarly, to the north of the site, the terrace of properties closest to existing properties on Coles Lane has been reduced to a terrace of three homes to provide a more significant degree of separation to the closest properties (no 39 Coles Lane and 1 Coles Farm Cottages).

It is considered this proposal would not result in any seriously detrimental harm in terms of amenity.

Status of the neighbourhood plan

An emerging neighbourhood plan may be a material consideration. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the weight that may be given to relevant policies in emerging plans in decision taking. Factors to consider include the stage of preparation of the plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies.

The Milborne St Andrew Neighbourhood Plan (MSANP) has recently been submitted to NDDC. It is considered to be in the early stages of preparation for an emerging plan. This means that it has undergone one stage of public consultation before it was submitted to the local planning authority, NDDC.

Our Policy colleagues will need to check through the submitted material to make sure that everything has been undertaken correctly and that all the necessary material is present before we undertake another stage of consultation. One of the documents that must be checked is the “consultation statement”. This document may suggest to us whether there are unresolved objections to the proposed policies. When we’ve had time to review this document we will be in a position to advise more accurately on the weight to be given on specific issues. Because of this the MSANP should carry limited weight in decision making at this time.

Page 28

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. The further away from a demonstrable five year housing land supply the more weight should be given to the benefits of delivering houses in sustainable locations. It will be for members to attribute the amount of weight given to policies in the planning balance exercise of each case.

Milborne St Andrew is located off the A354 which is the main road through the village connecting it to Puddletown and Winterborne Whitchurch. There is a village hall, a shop, a public house, outdoor recreational facilities to the south and an infant school to the north of the road which is where the majority of the housing is located. It is therefore considered to be a sustainable location for some additional growth.

The proposed development site shares a boundary with the designated settlement boundary for Milborne St Andrew. By definition, the site is in the countryside but policies which limit countryside development are out-of-date. It is considered that this location has a more favourable relationship than isolated development in the countryside. This should be given weight in the overall planning balance.

The Neighbourhood Plan Group has suggested that there is no housing shortfall in terms of five year housing land supply for ‘Stalbridge and the villages’ by disaggregating the housing supply requirement to isolate rural areas. However this is not a position Officers can support. As stated above, there is considered to be a serious shortfall in the District’s housing land supply.

The Neighbourhood Plan Group also make reference to an appeal decision from Didcot in South Oxfordshire. However, in that decision the Inspector opines that “…the circumstances relating to Didcot are rather unusual…” Other than being a rural location within a District that has a housing shortfall the merits of the case do not appear to have a strong relationship to this application and Milborne St Andrew. No weight should be attached to this line of argument.

Design

The scheme incorporates a positive sense of arrival with dwellings oriented to front onto the central junction and area of green space. The aspiration to reduce visible parking from the street scene has been realised through on-plot parking and a parking courtyard to the north. Opportunity for informal parking is restricted by the layout which will further assist ensuring that parking does not dominate the street scene. The positioning of dwellings at the head of key junctions aids the definition of space, further enhancing the design quality of the development.

The design of the individual buildings proposed is taken from the Dorset vernacular and this is welcomed. The layout and plot pattern is taken from the adjacent development on Huntley Down and respects this pattern and form.

Subject to a condition to agree materials the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in the context of this site.

Page 29

Impact on landscape and trees

The site has no landscape designations and offers an opportunity to create a transitional development edge without extending the development line of the village into the open countryside. Its topography rises steeply up the valley from the existing development which will elevate proposed buildings above the existing skyline of the village.

The proposed density represents a reduction in the number of units proposed compared with the previously refused application and allows for more landscaping to be incorporated into the development particularly to the north and south. The proposed layout is considered to have a good open form similar to the character of the area. Subject to conditions that secure robust boundary planting the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Impact on ecology

A Biodiversity Mitigation Plan has been submitted with a certificate of approval from Dorset County Council. This should be complied with and conditioned.

Natural England has requested that contributions are sought to support the impact of new development on the Heathland and Poole harbour nitrate contribution. This should be added to any section 106 agreement.

Risk of flooding and pollution

Subject to appropriate conditions, no objections have been raised by Wessex Water, the Environment Agency, or DCC Flood Risk Management team.

Highway safety and traffic generation

The application has been assessed by the Dorset County Council Highways authority.

The access to the site is proposed to be provided from an extension of Huntley Down with an estate road layout that fully embraces the principles suggested by Manual for Streets, providing a safe and attractive place for all road users. It is suitable for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act and restricts vehicle speeds to 20mph or less. It is suitable for use by refuse vehicles and other large service HGVs.

Car parking has been provided in excess of the recommendations of the Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset Residential Car Parking Study with a total of 70 spaces. As such it meets policy in this regard. The Neighbourhood plan group raised concerns about numbers of parking spaces being insufficient however these are not required in terms of policy.

The County Highway Authority considers that the submitted Transport Statement is satisfactory and robust. Whilst it is accepted that the proposal will obviously increase traffic flows on the local highway network the residual cumulative impact of the development cannot be thought to be severe when consideration is given to paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 30

Affordable housing

The development would provide 10 affordable housing units. This would be compliant with LPP1 which seeks 40 percent of the total number of dwellings. This should be considered as a significant benefit of this proposal. It would help to address local needs housing in the short-term. As this is a full planning application with a developer on- board the delivery houses to the market can be expected to be quicker than if this were an outline application.

The 10 affordable homes are proposed to be 2 x 1 bed, 5 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed. This is also in accordance with the local housing need and complies with Policy 8. The higher levels of need are for smaller homes and the policy aims to provide a design and layout that creates a tenure blind development.

The plans submitted show the affordable house pepper potted as much a possible within a relatively small development while still addressing the needs of a registered provider. On balance however the design proposed is considered sufficient to meet with policy.

The mix of affordable housing is proposed to be 70% affordable rented with 30% intermediate housing ownership. This along with the number of homes to be provided with number of beds should be included in the section 106 agreement.

Planning contributions

The speculative nature of this application means that neither the District nor the local parish council has had sufficient time to fully consider the impact and needs of this development. As such, it would be unreasonable to expect them to have fully costed projects on which to direct these contributions. This Councill’s approach is to seek the full set of contributions as set out below on any speculative development in the countryside. If a speculative proposal is not refused on other planning grounds, this approach will allow parish council’s much more time to consider projects necessary to support development as set out in policy. Any unspent contributions can be clawed back by the developer as set out in the terms of the legal agreement (normally we seek five years after the completion of the development as the earliest date for clawback).

The applicant has expressed a willingness to reconsider some of the highway improvements suggested by the MSA NPG. The remainder of infrastructure should be provided within the parish, or within 3 miles of the application site (walking distance) in order to ensure that the infrastructure is related to the development proposed.

The triggers for payments will need to be agreed as part of the S106 legal agreement. Normally we seek payment in two equal parts; the first part upon practical completion of the first dwelling, the second part before the occupation of the second half of the dwellings.

It is a fact that agricultural land values are significantly lower compared to urban development sites with no contamination or unusual burdens. Hence, viability should not be a particular issue in this case and the amounts listed above should not be open to negotiation other than were a developer can offer land which is a cost built into some of the figures.

Page 31

In order to make development acceptable in planning terms, applications for major housing development such as this one are expected to maintain and enhance the level of grey, green & social infrastructure as set out in Policies 13, 14 and 15 of the LPP1. As such, the following planning contributions, to be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement, are being sought per dwelling unless otherwise specified:

Destination play facilities (NEAP, MUGA, etc) £ 967.52 Maintenance of destination play £ 359.36

Allotments £ 308.16

Formal outdoor sports £ 1,318.80 Maintenance of formal outdoor sports £ 128.73

On-site informal outdoor space £ 2,307.36 Maintenance of informal outdoor space £ 1,278.80

Community, Leisure & Indoor sport facilities £ 2,006.97

Rights of way enhancement £ TBC

Natural environment - ecology, heathland etc. Poole Harbour nitrates £ 868.80 Dorset Heathlands £ 241.00

Education Primary and secondary (not for 1-bed or age protected) £ 6,094.00 Pre-school provision (not for 1-bed or age protected) £ 190.50

Primary care services £ 0.00

Highways and sustainable transport £ TBC

Other items seeking contributions: * On-site play provision LEAP - LAP £ 1,338.90 Maintenance (LEAP - LAP) £ 917.33

* On-site informal outdoor space is expected to be provided in the form of a local equipped area of play (LEAP) by the developer. The applicant for this particular scheme is proposing to provide a local area of play (LAP). It is Officer opinion that the difference between the two should be used toward other off-site provisions (S106) if these can be identified by the Council and meet the relevant tests for contributions. This is currently is the subject of negotiation and will be resolved by officers.

The above figures are based on the best available information including local best practice and regard has been given to national guidance & policy to ensure obligations remain proportionate to the scale of development and reasonable in all other regards.

The figures above are indicative of what we expect to achieve for the parish council on these items. Officers are, and will continue to, work with MSA parish council to identify specific items and projects subject to Committee’s decision. If, for whatever reason, these matters cannot be agreed with the developer, then officers will report this

Page 32 application back to the Planning Manager or the Planning Committee as this could constitute a reason for refusal.

Other material planning issues

People with disabilities or mobility impairments, or pushing buggies, would be accommodated through the final highway design of corners and cross-overs. Individual houses could be adapted to provide special access as needed.

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 paragraph 11 (including footnotes 6 and 7), 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 raised either with this site or the proposed residential development that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of delivering 10no.affordable housing dwellings and 15no.open market dwellings.

On the second point, no particular policies have been identified that would restrict development of this site for residential purposes.

Conclusion:

The proposed development of twenty-five dwellings on this site is considered to be acceptable having regard to the context and merits of this case.

The applicant has adequately addressed the reasons for refusal of the previous application for thirty dwellings on this site. In particular, the proposed layout is similar to

Page 33 the loose knit and spacious characteristics of this edge of village location, and the proposed siting and scale of the dwellings would not result in a serious loss of amenity.

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. The MSA NP is at an early stage which carries limited weight.

This site shares a boundary with the settlement of MSA which is one of the larger settlement in NDDC capable of accommodating some growth in housing.

Recommendation:

Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 to secure affordable housing, and other necessary off-site contributions stated in this report.

Conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly and only in accordance with the following approved drawings and details:

- Location and block plan (17161.79) - Proposed Site Plan (17161.22) - Plots 01 and 02 Plans and Elevations (17161.80) - Plot 03 Plans and Elevations (17161.81) - Plots 04 and 05 Plans and Elevations (17161.82) - Plot 06 Plans and Elevations (17161.83) - Plot 07 Plans and Elevations (17161.84) - Plot 08 Plans and Elevations (17161.85) - Plot 09 Plans and Elevations (17161.86) - Plots 10 and 11 Plans and Elevations (17161.87) - Plot 12 Plans and Elevations (17161.88) - Plot 13 Plans and Elevations (17161.89) - Plot 14 Plans and Elevations (17161.90) - Plot 15 Plans and Elevations (17161.91) - Plot 16, 17, 18 Plans and Elevations (17161.92) - Plot 19, 20, 21 Plans and Elevations (17161.93) - Plots 22 and 23 Plans and Elevations (17161.94) - Plot 24 Plans and Elevations (17161.95) - Plot 25 Plans and Elevations (17161.96)

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify the permission.

3. Prior to occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on drawing number 17161.22 shall

Page 34 have been constructed. Thereafter these areas shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and made available for the purposes specified.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

4. Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved a scheme showing precise details of cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme must be constructed before first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved and thereafter maintained and kept free from obstruction, and made available for the purpose specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper construction of the parking facilities and to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes.

5. Prior to commencement of any works on site, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Amongst other relevant matters, the CTMP shall 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; - contractors' site arrangement plan(s) (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing and drainage); - wheel cleaning facilities; - vehicle cleaning facilities; - 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: In the intereset of highway safety. In particular, to minimise the likely impact of construction traffic on the surrounding highway network and prevent the possible deposit of loose material on the adjoining highway.

6. No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) based on the submitted Hydrogeological Risk Assessment and relevant to all phases of the construction of the proposed development, is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall outline the potential impacts from all construction activities on both groundwater and surface water and identify the appropriate mitigation measures which shall then be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. It shall include, but not be exclusive, to the following matters:

a. Satisfactory arrangements for grit traps, sumps, oil interceptors (and sampling chambers) to restrict contaminants entering the groundwater system. These will require a regular maintenance and cleansing regime. b. storage and use of fuels and other chemicals on the site; c. all plant and equipment shall be checked each day for signs of leakage of fuel or other fluids and any equipment found to be leaking shall be removed from the site immediately; and d. design & management of on-site facilities including welfare units and vehicle washing etc, particularly in relation to disposal of waste water / effluent.

Page 35

Reason: To minimise risk to groundwater and in the interest of public health

7. Prior to any development, details of maintenance and management of the foul and surface water sustainable drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These details should include, an implementation schedule, 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.

8. No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, no part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the approved scheme has been fully implemented.

Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and/or pollution.

9. Prior to any development, a detailed and finalised a sealed system of foul water drainage and surface water management scheme for the site during and post- development, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed. In particular, the scheme shall demonstrate the proposal poses either no risk to groundwater and the aquifer(s) feeding the abstraction boreholes, or that any risk can be successfully mitigated.

Reason: To prevent groundwater infiltration into the foul sewer network affecting service levels to public sewer systems and to prevent any increased risk of flooding.

10. Prior to occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, an arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Plannning Authority. The statement shall include, amongst other relevant details, the following:

- details of any proposed tree works; - installation of temporary ground protection and/or fencing; - construction methodologies for installation of new hard surfacing within the RPA of retained trees; and - an auditable/audited system of arboricultural site monitoring, including a schedule of specific site events requiring input or supervision.

Reason: in the interest of public amentity and ecology.

11. Prior to occupation of any dwelling hereby approved precise details of all tree, shrub and hedge planting (including positions and/or density, species and planting size) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Planting shall be carried out before the end of the first available planting season following substantial completion of the development. In the five year period following the substantial completion of the development any trees that are removed without the

Page 36 written consent of the Local Planning Authority or which die or become (in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority) seriously diseased or damaged, shall be replaced as soon as reasonably practical and not later than the end of the first available planting season, with specimens of such size and species and in such positions as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. In the event of any disagreement the Local Planning Authority shall conclusively determine when the development has been completed, when site conditions permit, when planting shall be carried out and what specimens, size and species are appropriate for replacement purposes.

Reason: In the interests of public amenity and ecology.

12. The Biodiversity Mitigation Plan submitted with the application (from Clare Bird and Adrien Meurer (Hankinson Duckett Associates) dated 11th December 2017) shall be implementation in full.

Reason: To mitigate the potential adverse affects of the development on the local ecology.

13. Nothwithstanding the details on the approved plans, samples of facing and roofing materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby approved shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interest of good design and to maintain the character of the area.

14. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, details of the proposed LAP (in the location shown on the Proposed Site Plan (17161.22)) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those details shall include, amongst other things, planting, layout, schedule of implementation, and future maintenance responsibilities.

Reason: In the interest of public amenity and ecology.

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.

Page 37

DECISION:

Page 38

LOCATION PLAN 2/2018/1240/FUL

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

Page 39 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

Gillingham

Application Type: Approval of Reserved Application No: 2/2018/0483/REM Matters

Applicant: Taylor Wimpey (Southern Case Officer: Martin Pendlebury Counties) UK Ltd

Recommendation Summary: Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a Deed of Variation to the original Section 106 legal agreement to secure: 20% of the units as affordable housing and then APPROVE subject to conditions listed.

Location: Land To The East Of Lodden Lakes, New Road, Gillingham, Dorset

Proposal: Erect 90 No. dwellings with garages, bin / cycle store, building to house electricity sub-station and associated infrastructure, including play areas and public open space. (Reserved Matters application to determine appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2014/0968/OUT).

Reason for Committee Decision: This major housing application was granted outline planning permission by the Planning Committee 14 May 2015, coupled to a Section 106 Agreement which, amongst elements of community benefit, requires the provision of 35% affordable housing. Taylor Wimpey state this level of affordable housing is no longer viable and now seeks as part of this Reserved Matters application to vary the terms of the legal agreement. Consequently Committee approval is required to vary the terms of the existing Section 106 Agreement, whilst also allowing the opportunity to determine the detailed design of the development.

Planning Policies:

Local Plan: The North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) was adopted by North Dorset District Council (NDDC) on 15 January 2016. It, along with policies retained from the 2003 North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan, 1 and the ‘made’ Gillingham Neighbourhood Plan, form the development plan for North Dorset. Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Notably this is a Reserved Matters application to determine appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2014/0968/OUT. The principle of development and point of access have been established by the Outline Planning Permission in 2015. Consequently the relevant applicable policies in the Adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1, January 2016 are as follows:

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 3: Climate Change Policy 4: The Natural Environment

Page 41

Policy 7: Delivering Homes Policy 8: Affordable Housing Policy 13: Grey Infrastructure Policy 15: Green Infrastructure Policy 17: Gillingham Policy 21: Gillingham Strategic Site Allocation Policy 23: Parking Policy 24: Design Policy 25: Amenity

The North Dorset Local Plan Review

The Adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 is now in the process of being comprehensively reviewed. The North Dorset Local Plan Review – Issues and Options Consultation document was published in November 2017. Given the relatively early stage of this review very limited weight may be given to this emerging policy document in the decision making process of this Reserved Matters application.

Gillingham Neighbourhood Plan

The Gillingham Neighbourhood Plan was ‘made’ on 27 July, 2018 and forms part of the Development Plan for North Dorset. Relevant policies applicable to this Reserved Matters application are:

 Policy 1. Custom and self-build housing  Policy 2. Flexible living accommodation to suit all needs  Policy 12. Pedestrian and cycle links  Policy 13. Road designs in new development  Policy 18. Equipped play areas and informal recreation / amenity spaces  Policy 20. Accessible natural green space and river corridors  Policy 22. Protecting important green spaces  Policy 23. The pattern and shape of development  Policy 24. Plots and buildings  Policy 25. Hard and soft landscaping

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018:

The NPPF has been updated with a revised version published on 23 July, 2018. The following sections and paragraphs are relevant to this Reserved Matters application:

1. Introduction 2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Page 42

Decision taking: Paragraph 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5 Year Land Supply

Officers noted that where a 5-year supply of housing land cannot be demonstrated paragraph 11d i) and ii) of the Framework outlines the implications for how development proposals should be determined. It 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.

Associated NPPF Government technical guidance: Viability (July 2018)

Coupled to the new NPPF Government published updated Viability technical guidance (24 July, 2018). This is particularly relevant to the issue of assessing the level of affordable housing deemed to be viable for this development site to deliver. Applicable Sections of the guidance are:

 Viability and plan making  Viability and decision taking  Standardised inputs to viability assessment  Accountability

Other Material Planning Considerations:

Dorset County Council parking standards guidance . Planning Practice Guidance: On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. Elements of the Planning Practice Guidance relevant to this application have informed the “Planning Appraisal” section of the report. Description of Site:

The site is located within the designated settlement boundary for Gillingham and also forms part of the wider Gillingham Strategic Site Allocation (north western quadrant). It lies to the south of Addison Close and The Meadows, east of Lodden Lakes, and west of the River Lodden.

The site extends to 3.83 ha (9.46 acres) and comprises an area of gently undulating meadows, on the southern edge of the existing built up area of Gillingham. The site has a gentle topography, falling to the south east towards the River Lodden.

It is contained by existing landscape features, comprising semi-mature trees to the south west surrounding Lodden Lakes; a mature hedgerow on the southern boundary and mature hedgerows on and near the south east boundary through the River Lodden valley. A further

Page 43 hedgerow bisects the site from north to south, with a mix of hedgerow, post and wire and timber fencing on the boundary adjacent to the existing residential areas.

The site has access from Addison Close to the north-west, which serves housing development to the north of the site. Addison Close joins New Road (B3092) at a T-junction to the north west of the site, with the town centre of Gillingham and railway station to the north.

A public footpath (N64/34) enters the site on the northern boundary via a timber style and crosses the site in a south east direction, crossing the River Lodden via an existing timber footbridge.

The Meadows housing development adjoining the site’s northern boundary and dates from the 1980s. It comprising two-storey housing in terraced blocks set back from the site boundary, with some semi-detached properties to the north east located closer to the site boundary. These houses are accessed by The Meadows, which divides into a series of cul- de-sac. The two-storey houses, north of the site, are of a simple design, faced in pale bradstone type material with clay coloured concrete tiled roofs. Housing to the north west of the site comprises a mix of early 1990s semi-detached properties arranged in a low density setting, and a more-recent, timber-clad, three-storey apartment development known as ‘Nexus’, located on the corner of Addison Close and New Road.

South of the site lies agricultural land of a similar character to the site; largely pasture land divided into large field parcels by mature hedgerows and fencing. Further south is Duncliffe Hill, which combines with more distant higher ground to provide a backdrop to the area south of the town. Two coarse fishing lakes (Lodden Lakes) are located adjacent to the south west boundary. These are largely screened from the site by a dense mix of hedgerows and mature trees. To the west of the Lodden Lakes and New Road lies the Brickfields Business Park (which is screened from the application site).

The River Lodden and related riparian vegetation dominate the lower lying land to the east of the site, beyond which lies a higher density two-storey (with some three-storey elements) residential area, Chaffinch Chase, circa early 2000s. The use of varied building heights and materials provide an attractive outlook in this direction.

Description of Development:

The description of development, provided in the application forms, is:

Reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the development of 90 homes and associated infrastructure pursuant to outline planning permission granted under application ref 2/2014/0968/OUT.

The application also provides details of the landscaping of the site, as one of the ’reserved matters’. This includes the details of the areas of public open space to be delivered as part of the development, including:

 1.03 hectares (2.55 acres) of public open space to the east of the site;  A Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP), within the public open space to the east of the site; and  A Local Area for Play (LAP), within a 0.07 ha area of public open space

Page 44

The application reflects pre-application community engagement and feedback from discussion with local stakeholders. Following the submission of the reserved matters application in April, 2018, Taylor Wimpey has sought to address issues raised in comments from consultees. Most notably those made by DCC Highways, NDD Council’s planning, landscape and urban design officers and Gillingham Town Council. This resulted in the submission of a package of amended proposals on 10 October, 2018, to address design, technical layout and viability/affordable housing issues raised during the reserved matters consultation process. Notably the deadline for responses to the re-notification and re-consultations on the amended proposals expires on 26 October, 2018. Responses received after this date will be reported to the Planning Committee in an addendum update sheet which will be circulated at the meeting and form part of the case officer’s presentation.

Affordable housing

The amended proposals now show an increase in affordable housing from 10 to 20% comprising:

Affordable Housing Mix - 18 homes: • 2no. 1 Bed Flat • 11no. 2 Bed Flat • 2no. 2 Bed House • 3no. 3 Bed House

Estate layout & built form:

The single vehicular point of access is fixed by the existing outline planning permission, forming a new T-junction on the south side of Addison Close. Thereafter the proposed development is served by a principal estate road with a shared surface route forming a loop to the south; together with further shared surface and private drive ‘spurs’ to the north and east. The application incorporates the potential to continue the principal access through to adjoining land parcels within the allocated Gillingham SSA to the south. It includes the diversion of the public footpath through the site and the potential for the pedestrian access from The Meadows to be retained.

A maintenance corridor and pedestrian link to the River Lodden greenway network are proposed through the large area of public open space along the sites eastern boundary with the River Lodden.

The layout is constrained by the no build zone along the foul sewer easement that traverses the site from the southern and western boundary with Lodden Lakes through to northern boundary with The Meadows cul-de-sac; and flood zone 3 related to the River Lodden.

In terms of built form all the houses and blocks of flats are two storeys (with the exception of garages and an electricity substation in the south west corner of the site). A pair of semi-detached houses and one detached house are proposed on the portion of the site fronting the south side of Addison Close. The remainder of the dwellings (a mixture of terraced, semi-detached, detached houses and blocks of flats) all front the proposed new estate roads and private drives within the site.

The proposed dwelling mix is now as follows, with the figure in brackets () showing the change from the original reserved matters submission:

Page 45

Total Housing Mix - 90 homes:  2no. 1 Bed Flat  11no. 2 Bed Flat (+7)  6no. 2 Bed House (-7)  54no. 3 Bed House  17no. 4 Bed House

Market Housing Mix - 72 homes:  4no. 2 Bed House (-9)  51no. 3 Bed House  17no. 4 Bed House

Affordable Housing Mix - 18 homes:  2no. 1 Bed Flat  11no. 2 Bed Flat (+7)  2no. 2 Bed House (+2)  3no. 3 Bed House

Taylor Wimpey propose that the tenure split and delivery of these will be secured as part of a Deed of Variation to the S106 Agreement entered into when outline planning permission was granted.

Public open space:

This application proposes no changes to the fundamental design principle for the development of this site, which reflects the master planning principles as described in the Design and Access Statement, submitted as part of the original reserved matters application.

Further discussions with Gillingham Town Council has informed the detailed design and specification of the areas of public open spaces (including the LAP and LEAP), which form part of the proposed development and which Taylor Wimpey intend will be transferred to the Town Council for it to manage and maintain. These areas have been updated as part of the revised reserved matters details as shown on the submitted landscaping plans.

Highways, layout and other changes:

The revised scheme is designed to address detailed design matters raised by consultees including road geometry and urban design improvements (creating better street frontages / vistas with buildings having an attractive face on both frontages where located on corner plots etc.). It also amends the layout reducing by 9 the number of open market homes and increasing by 9 the number of affordable homes.

Constraints:

Flood Zone Types - Flood Zone 2 & 3 Public Rights of Way – Footpath Route Code: N64/34 Foul Water Sewer Easement (no structures or tree planting within 5m either side of pipe)

Page 46

Consultations:

Gillingham TC Consulted on the 18 April and 10 October 2018, their comments dated 18 May 2018: I can confirm that Planning Application No. 2/2018/0483/REM was considered by Gillingham Town Council at a Planning Committee meeting held on Monday 14th May 2018.

Gillingham Town Council has no objections to the application subject to the necessary amendments being made as recommended by the County Highways Authority, and amended designs for the play areas being submitted.

Minutes of the meeting are available to view online at www.gillinghamdorset-tc.gov.uk or on request from Gillingham Town Hall.

Gillingham Town Ward Consulted on the 18 April and 10 October 2018, there was no response from Ward Councillors at the time of report preparation.

Wessex Water Consulted on the 18 April 2018, their comments dated 13 June 2018 are as follows: No objection - the site is crossed by a 300mm strategic foul sewer and we are satisfied that the site layout has been designed to accommodate the public sewer and statutory easement. The developer must accurately plot the line of the sewer on site and on deposited drawings to ensure that the easement is observed and the sewer and manholes are protected throughout the construction programme.

We note that the foul and surface water drainage strategy for this site is subject to Condition 3 under the outline approval. Informative/advisory notes are recommended for inclusion in any reserved matters approval.

Environment Agency Consulted on the 18 April 2018, their comments dated 11 May 2018 are as follows: No objection - Flood Risk Management: We note the '5m Maintenance corridor' highlighted on the Site Plan (Drawing Number UP00072-02-H. We appreciate the inclusion of this access route into the proposals and would ask that it is designed and maintained to remain free of all obstructions (fences, planting, play equipment, structures etc.). Conditions from 2/2014/0968/OUT: Please note that there are a number of planning conditions that we wish to see formal consultation on (specifically conditions 3, 4 and 5) prior to discharge.

Drainage (Flood Risk Management) - DCC Consulted on the 4 May 2018, their comments dated 24 May 2018 are as follows: Defer to the Environment Agency: The original proposal outline application was registered with you prior to the transfer of the surface water role to DCC in April 2015, we are not permitted or obliged to comment as a statutory consultee in this matter.

Prior to our designation as consultee for SW management, the Environment Agency (EA) held these responsibilities. In addition, the EA remain a consultee for development in fluvial flood zones. It may therefore be appropriate for you to consult with the EA in relation to this planning application.

Page 47

In any case, if the EA have been consulted previously in relation to this application then, to ensure both continuity and compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), you should seek comment from the EA in terms of both flood risk and SW management.

Rights Of Way - DCC Consulted on the 18 April 2018, their comments dated 18 October 2018 are as follows:

No objection – having spoken to the applicant’s agent and studying the proposed diversion map of drawing number UP00072-07-C, I am happy that this will be the best solution.

They are aware of the need for a Temporary Path Closure Order to be obtained from this office; the application must be completed and returned at least thirteen weeks before the intended closure date.

I am unaware of any unrecorded paths that may be affected.

Include informative/advisory note on decision: The proposed new footpath bridleway should be to Dorset County Council’s current standards; 2m in width and with gates to the current British Standard (BS5709:2018) where necessary.

Please note that the proposed works directly affect Footpath N64/34 as shown on the enclosed plans:

The footpath must be diverted by legal order (TCPA) and that order must be confirmed before any works obstructing the path are commenced. If the path is obstructed in the absence of such a legal order this department will carry out enforcement action as deemed appropriate. The route suggested in the supporting documents would be suitable (Adoptable Highway Public Right of Way Plan). The footpath however will need to be temporarily closed for the period of the works. Ideally an alternative route would be given. Also, even though the northern section of the route is not with in the development area this would be diverted on to a more suitable line as well. Please see attached map for suggested route. The proposed new footpath should be to Dorset County Council’s current standards; 2m in width and with gates if required to the current British Standard (BS5709:2006) where necessary.

The free passage of the public on all rights of way must not be obstructed at any time. If the public are unlikely to be able to exercise their public rights on the above path then a Temporary Path Closure Order must be obtained. This can be applied for through this office but the application must be completed and returned at least thirteen weeks before the intended closure date. It should be noted that there is a fee applicable to this application.

Transport Development Management - DCC Consulted on the 18 April 2018, their comments dated 9 May 2018 are as follows: Holding objection raising numerous detailed design concerns including the geometry of the estate roads; junction radii, position of visitor parking spaces and seeking off-site pedestrian crossing provision.

Further detailed design recommendations made on 20 June 2018 in response to draft amended plans.

Page 48

Taylor Wimpey submitted revised plans on 10 October 2018. Transport Development Management – DCC were re-consulted on 11 October 2018. No response from this consultee at the time of report preparation. However it is thought that the revised plans should resolve the Highway Authority’s objection. Their response to the revised plans will be reported at the Planning Committee Meeting.

Dorset Police - Architectural Liaison Officer Consulted on the 18 April 2018: No response at the time of report preparation.

Tree Officer North - NDDC Consulted on the 18 April 2018, their comments dated 23 April 2018 are as follows: Comments to be submitted by Senior Tree and Landscape Officer.

Dorset Waste Partnership Consulted on the 18 April and 10 October 2018: No response at the time of report preparation.

Dorset Fire and Rescue Service Consulted on the 18 April and 10 October 2018: No response at the time of report preparation.

NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group Consulted on the 18 July 2018, their comments dated 2 August 2018 are summarised as follows: No objection in principle; note impact that a further 90 dwellings/increased population will have on local NHS resources in terms of Primary and Community Care - therefore seek CIL or Section 106 Agreement financial contributions.

Case Officer Note: This reserved matters application is purely to determine appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of development, following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2014/0968/OUT. All financial contributions from this development have been set by the extant outline planning permission and there is no increase in number of dwellings covered by that permission.

Dorset Education Authority - DCC Consulted on the 4 May 2018, their comments dated 24 May and 17 October 2018 are as follows: No Objection - on the understanding that this RM application is under the auspice of the s106 agreement following the Outline Consent. The obligations within this agreement are r122 compliant and the s106 is applicable as referred to in the Planning Statement. It is agreed that the qualifying unit number is 88, there being 2 1 bed units.

Planning Obligations Manager - DCC Consulted on 18 April 2018, his comments dated 9 May 2018 summarised: No objections in principle - with regard to the education matters, refer consultation response above.

PRoW: The submitted plans indicate 3 NMU routes to the boundary of the site. The route to the Meadows (eastern connection) should be constructed as a cycleway / footway. The s38 plan indicates only a footway.

Footpath N64/34 is diverted, as indicated A-B & C-D. The diversion will require legal costs of the diversion order/conversion to bridleway process to be paid. The s106 appears silent on this point. This needs to be clarified and cost agreed.

Page 49

The PRoW from the edge of the adopted highway to the bridge / eastern boundary will need to function as a shared use - it should be 3m wide tarmac surface

The access road into the southern allocation should form a contiguous carriageway to the boundary. Conditions must be applied to afford the adjoining future development of the southern site sufficient rights to enter, construct and tie into the road on this site.

Landscape Architect - NDDC Consulted on the 26 April 2018, their comments dated 5 June 2018 are summarised: No objection in principle - the review of the appropriateness and effectiveness, of the application at Lodden lakes is significantly limited by the lack of an agreed masterplan for the south of Gillingham. It is critical that the separate development applications have united objectives to integrate proposals for the area with good design and maximised benefits to comply with policy 21 North Dorset Local Plan. This will limit the potentially ‘significantly adverse’ cumulative landscape effects of the whole development and essentially, also ensure positive GI planning. In turn ensuring an extension to the town that is integrated into the setting the surrounding area.

I am satisfied that the scale and density of development is appropriate for the character of the area.

A number of detailed recommendations are made regarding hard and soft landscaping.

Taylor Wimpey submitted revised plans on 10 October 2018. Landscape Architect was re- consulted on 11 October 2018. No response from this consultee at the time of report preparation. However it is thought that the revised plans should resolve key landscape concerns. Their response to the revised plans will be reported at the Planning Committee Meeting.

Urban Design - NDDC Consulted on the 26 April 2018, their comments dated 30 May 2018 summarised: No objection in principle -the perimeter block form of development, positive frontages overlooking open spaces and majority of retained hedges within the public domain are positive features of the layout. However I have some comments & concerns regarding; footpath links with the surrounding area, the nature & extent of hard surfacing, the way development turns corners, the sense of arrival, boundary treatments and future maintenance of green infrastructure.

Taylor Wimpey submitted revised plans on 10 October 2018. Urban Design team were re- consulted on 11 October 2018. No response from this consultee at the time of report preparation. However it is thought that the revised plans should resolve all key urban design concerns. Their response to the revised plans will be reported at the Planning Committee Meeting.

Conservation Officer - NDDC Consulted on the 11 October 2018, their comments dated 15 June summarised: No objections - there are no designated heritage assets within proximity to the site likely to be harmed by these proposals.

In determining the proposals due consideration has been given to Section 12 of the NPPF, Sections 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act and Policy ENV4 of the Local Plan.

Page 50

Planning Policy Officer – NDDC Consulted 18 July 2018, comments received 2 May 2018: No objection - reviewing the East of Lodden Lakes material (2/2018/0483) – all seems to be in order and it does seem as if the developer has index linking fully covered in the original 2015 documentation.

Housing Enabling Officer – DCP Given the request for non-policy compliant level of affordable housing the views of the Housing Enabling Team Leader have been sought. His response will be reported to the Planning Committee at the meeting.

Representations: 1 letter of representation received to date in relation to the original reserved matters proposal, commenting as follows: Tree planting along access road adjacent to rear boundaries could lead to loss of light at 56, 55 and 54 the Meadows. Also the Tree roots could impact the access road and adjacent rear boundaries.

Case Officer Note: There have been two rounds of consultations and neighbour notifications (triggered by the receipt of amended plans). Given the scale of development, albeit a reserved matters application, it is notable that only one representation has been received to date. Any further representations received following re-notification of the revised application (with a response deadline 26 October 2018) will be reported to the Planning Committee at the meeting.

Relevant Planning History:

Application: 2/2014/0968/OUT Proposal: Develop the land by erection of up to 90 No. dwellings with public open space and create access from Addison Close, (outline application to determine access). Decision: Approve Decision Date: 14.05.2015

Planning Appraisal: The following issues are covered in the consideration of this application for Reserved Matters approval:

 Layout, scale and amenity  Appearance  Landscaping  Viability / affordable housing  Planning balance / other material considerations

The application is for the approval of all reserved matters, namely: appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2014/0968/OUT. Details of the access to Addison Close having been approved at the outline stage.

Page 51

Layout, scale and amenity

The development scheme follows principles established in the outline application in terms of number of dwellings. The scale of development is two storey reflecting the broad characteristics and density of neighbouring development. It also accords with the draft Gillingham Master Plan Framework. The disposition of formal and informal open space is appropriate and softens the urban edge of development in relation to the River Lodden. Amended detailed proposals for play equipment have been submitted by Taylor Wimpey in response concerns expressed by Gillingham Town Council.

In terms of amenity, appropriate back to back separation distances are maintained with existing housing in Addison Close. Various urban design and highway/estate layout refinements to the scheme have been sought. Amended plans have been submitted addressing the majority of identified issues. The further views of the Council’s Urban Design Officer and County Highway Engineer will be reported at the Planning Committee meeting.

Appearance

The site is relatively self-contained screened by mature hedgerows and trees around site boundaries. The development scheme incorporates an attractive range of house and flat designs using appropriately coloured brick, tile, slate coloured tiles and weatherboard style cladding external materials. Hard landscaping and surface treatments to the estate roads, shared surface and private drives also create an attractive appearance.

Gillingham Neighbourhood Plan includes the following Vision for the future of the town: “Gillingham will become a place which combines the best of town and country living and creates a healthy environment for working people, young families, those in retirement and older people. Future development will consist of well-planned areas which enhance the natural environment and provide beautifully and imaginatively designed homes that are affordable for ordinary people, together with job opportunities within easy reach and good access to healthcare. The town will have strong cultural, recreational and shopping facilities at the centre of its communities, together with integrated and accessible transport systems. There will be generous green spaces (gardens, streets and open spaces) which will link to the wider natural environment, and provide opportunities for residents to grow their own food. Local people’s aspirations will be put at the heart of decision making, and through community ownership of land and a long-term stewardship of assets.”

The outline planning permission established the principle of the development of this site. In term of the more recently ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan, it is considered that the delivery of the new homes, through this reserved matters application will support the vison for the town. For example, it will provide access and connections to important newly accessible green spaces (recognised in Policies 12 and 21). The design principles for the development of the site, including the hard and soft landscaping, will be appropriate to the context and character of the town (Policies 24 and 25) and will integrate with the local environment (Policy 26).

Landscaping

The development proposal is supported by detailed landscape drawings incorporating specification of works and planting schedules. These details are comprehensive and are considered to be acceptable in providing the required landscaping for the development of the site. Subject to the detailed changes sought by the Council’s Landscape Officer, the

Page 52 landscaping should be approved. Its implementation is to be covered by a condition specifying the relevant approved drawings, and that any plants which die or become diseased or are removed, are replaced with like for like species within the first five years after initial planting.

Viability and Affordable Housing

Notably viability issues and the level of affordable housing to be provided by this development have been contentious matters. In conjunction with addressing consultee comments, Taylor Wimpey has been seeking to agree a position (with the Council/District Valuer) on the viable level of delivery of affordable.

Delivery of 32 (35%) affordable homes was originally secured in planning obligations in a S106 Agreement with the Council for the outline planning permission granted 14 May 2015. This was the policy compliant level of affordable housing required at that point in time.

However, Taylor Wimpey now state that due to changes that have occurred in affordable housing funding since the grant of outline planning permission in 2015 (e.g. reduced Government funding to Registered Social Landlords) , it is not viable to deliver that amount of affordable housing. Consequently the reserved matters application originally submitted only proposed 9 (10%) affordable homes. The applicant asks the Council to evaluate the viability of the delivery of affordable housing in parallel to this reserved matters application, with a view to the planning obligations being amended in a deed of variation to the S106 Agreement, to secure the delivery of the new homes at this site.

It is important to note that in the intervening period between the outline permission in 2015 and this reserved matters application in 2018, the relevant policy requirement for affordable housing for Gillingham reduced from 35% to 25%. Specifically, The North Dorset Local Plan Part 1, adopted in January 2016, Policy 8 now requires 25% affordable housing provision for Gillingham. It also states: “In cases where a level of affordable housing provision below the target percentages is proposed, the developer may be offered an opportunity to involve the District Valuer …..with a view to agree a level of affordable housing provision.……If it can be demonstrated that the level of affordable housing provision below the percentage set out above can be justified on grounds of viability (taking account of grant funding or any other subsidy) an obligation will be required …. To secure the maximum level of provision achievable at the time of assessment.”

A specialist independent expert assessment has been sought from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) to advise the Council on the viability issues raised by this reserved matters application which now seeks to reduce the level of affordable housing from 35% to a non- policy compliant level of 20%.

The District Valuer Service (DVS) concluded their appraisal after dialogue and a ‘round table meeting’ with Taylor Wimpey’s own specialist advisor (Limited), following considering their viability appraisal.

Both the BVA and DVS viability assessments have been prepared in accordance with Government’s published updated Viability technical guidance (24 July, 2018).

In summary the District Valuer concludes in his report that a scheme providing 25% on-site affordable housing is financially viable. This is on the basis of adopted inputs, not all of which

Page 53 are agreed with the applicant and their representatives. For ease of reference, a summary of what is and isn’t agreed is as follows:

Agreed items:

• Stamp Duty at HMRC rate • Acquisition costs at 1.75% • Section 106 contributions at £1,133,878 • Externals at 15% of plot build costs • Abnormal costs at £1,155,386 • Professional fees at 8% • Sales legal fees at £575 per Open Market unit • Affordable Housing profit at 6% • Affordable Housing transfer fee at 0.5% of Affordable Housing gross development value (provisionally agreed) • Finance debit rate at 6.5% and credit rate at 2%

Items not agreed:

• Gross development value – Movement from original relative positions have been made but gap not bridged – Final position was a £370k difference on the basis of adopted Open Market Values • Build costs – Bailey Venning Associates (BVA) adopted Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) Median and District Valuer Services (DVS) adopted BCIS Lower Quartile (see report for details). • Contingency – BVA at 5% on total build costs. In an effort to reach agreement DVS have adopted 3% on plot build costs and 5% on external and abnormal costs • Sales & Marketing – Higher marketing % argued by BVA but not accepted by DVS • Developer Profit – Agree to disagree on this. BVA at 20% on Open Market units and DVS at 17.5% • Benchmark Land Value – BVA haven’t accepted the Existing Use Value (EUV) + approach and rely on market evidence. DVS proved that market transaction evidence does differ from agreed BLV in other local viability cases (see report). Residual Land Value (RLV) in DVS report is 15 x Existing Use Value

DVS advise their report is intended to help in deliberations over the current “offer on the table” [from Taylor Wimpey].

Taylor Wimpey’s position on viability is set out in their (Bailey Venning Associates Limited) assessment report which seeks to justify a level of affordable housing at 10%.

However, “in order to expedite the delivery of this development” Taylor Wimpey has now made a 20% offer of affordable housing on a “without prejudice basis” (on their view on viability as set out in the viability reports and discussions with the DV since the application was submitted), whilst still maintaining a 70:30 tenure split as per the existing S106 agreement.

In conclusion there remain matters of disagreement between the DV and the Applicant, which were explored at a ‘round table’ meeting on 4 September 2018 – including on build costs, contingency, sales and marketing fees, profit and benchmark land value / ‘reasonable incentivised return for the landowner’. It is on this last factor, wherein lies the most significant difference of professional opinion that results in distinctly different views about what level of

Page 54 affordable housing is viable. The BVA and DVS viability assessment reports are both available to examine in detail on the Council’s web site.

Planning balance and other material planning considerations

Notably, the Gillingham Town Council is supportive of the application and for a development of this scale, albeit a reserved matters application, it is notable that only one representation has been received to date.

It is important that the issue of viability and level of affordable housing provision is not looked at in isolation. The Council should consider the delivery of the affordable homes, as part of the overall planning balance, taking account of the advice the Council has sought from the DV and other material planning considerations.

In the final analysis the ‘viability gap’ now between Taylor Wimpey and the DVS is 5% i.e. Taylor Wimpey “without prejudice offer” of 20% (18 affordable homes) v DVS assessment of 25% (22.5 affordable homes).

Delivery of 20% affordable housing with a 70:30 tenure split will still make an important contribution to meeting local affordable housing need and should carry significant weight in the planning balance. Similarly, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply and the prospect of delivery of 90 homes by a national housebuilder keen to implement development within the Gillingham Strategic Site Allocation also should be accorded significant weight in the planning balance. The development is also coupled via the existing Section 106 agreement with important contributions to provision of community infrastructure; particularly primary and secondary education as well as halls, library, formal and informal open space, together with connections into existing and proposed development, as well as along the river corridor. As such the existing Section 106 proposals will support the overall objectives to secure enhanced community infrastructure within the town which also underpin the Strategic Site Allocation Policy requirements.

All these factors should be seen as significant benefits of this scheme that weigh in its favour.

Conclusion: The development follows the agreed principles of the outline planning permission and accords with relevant planning considerations, including the Local Plan and the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework, with the exception of being policy compliant for the level of affordable housing proposed. The application falls short by 5% in being policy compliant due to changes in the funding of affordable housing and professional differences of opinion regarding Taylor Wimpey and DVS on their respective viability assessments.

That said the application needs to be considered ‘in the round’ weighing all material issues in the planning balance, including:

 Local support for the development  Lack of an identifiable 5 year housing land supply  Prospect of early delivery of 90 homes  20% of which will be affordable housing  National housebuilder keen to implement development within the Gillingham SSA

Page 55

 Existing Section 106 supports overall objectives to secure enhanced community infrastructure within Gillingham and which also underpin the Strategic Site Allocation Policy requirements.

When all the material planning issues are considered in the planning balance, your Officer’s conclusion is that the benefits of the development warrant approval of the reserved matters. This despite the 5% shortfall in being policy compliant in delivering affordable housing coupled with agreeing to a Deed of Variation to the existing S106 Agreement to deliver 20% affordable housing.

It should be stressed that in so doing, this too is on a “without prejudice basis” for the continuing negotiations with the related Gillingham Consortium outline applications currently pending decisions within the Strategic Site Allocation.

Taylor Wimpey advise that the site layout has been prepared taking into account guidance and feedback from the Country Council's Highway Officers on the design of the site access and the detailed design of the internal movement network. These measures have included the provision of a 1.5m 'protected zone' throughout those areas of shared surface highway, ensuring there is a safe margin delineated by a kerb up-stand to deter vehicles and casual parking, and to offer a refuge for those people who may feel more vulnerable using a shared space environment. Additionally and where there is a possibility of cars accidentally overrunning the protected zone, bollards have been provided at junctions to maintain highway safety. Where shared surface highway meets the conventional segregated road/footway, a level threshold is provided to maintain easy access for the mobility impaired or those with pushchairs. Elsewhere, the layout of the highway facilitates the inclusion of drop kerbs and tactile paving in accordance with highway design standards. Additionally, Part M of the Building Regulations will be adhered to in providing level thresholds to dwellings. In relation to promoting the creation of an accessible and inclusive development that is well related to its surroundings, the proposals have been carefully designed to take account of existing footpath connections as well the strategic development proposals for the wider area. These include maintaining and improving the existing public right of way to 'The Meadows' by providing a more direct, 2m wide footpath connection between plots 30 and 31, well overlooked by new homes to ensure this route feels safe to use at all times. In addition, the proposals maintain the informal permissive access via the gap in the hedgerow adjacent to No 24 ‘The Meadows’ and provide a 3m wide footpath link at this point up to the legal ownership, thus ensuring existing residents can continue to access the open space alongside the River Lodden for dog walking and general recreation. A further two 2m wide footpath links and a separate adoptable road link are provided along the southern boundary to help maximise pedestrian connectivity with the strategic development proposals taking place to the south. In relation to the creation of an attractive, safe and inclusive public realm with the potential to help foster a positive sense of community, the proposals have been designed around the provision of two new areas of play. The first of these is provided as a Local Area of Play (LAP), located within the centre of the site and designed with a mixture of natural play and seating areas designed as a place for residents to meet and for young persons to play in a safe environment. The second, larger space is provided as a Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP), located within the eastern riverside corridor where there is more space for active play for older children / teenagers. The detailed design of these spaces has been carefully considered in consultation with the Town Council to ensure their layout and specifications are appropriate to the needs of the local community.

Page 56

Finally, it is noted that there are viability issues with this proposal and your Officer’s consider that Taylor Wimpey has gone a substantial way in this reserved matters application towards meeting legitimate and reasonable aims set out in the Equalities Act. Recommendation:

Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a Deed of Variation to the original Section 106 legal agreement to secure: 20% of the units as affordable housing and then APPROVE the Reserved Matters application subject to conditions and informative/advisory notes listed.

1. 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.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan UP00072-12-A Site Layout UP00072-02-H Materials Distribution Plan UP00072-06-C Adoptable Highway & PROW Plan UP00072-07-C Parking Distribution and Refuse Collection Plan UP00072-08-C Building Heights Plan UP00072-09-C Affordable Housing Distribution Plan UP00072-10-A Dwelling Design Pack ((05.10.18) UP00072 DPP TYPE A_B (34-37) UP00072-A_B-01 TYPE A_B (34-37) UP00072-A_B-02 TYPE C (39-40) UP00072-C-01 TYPE C (39-40) UP00072-C-02 TYPE D (9_10_11) UP00072-D-01 TYPE D (9_10_11) UP00072-D-02 TYPE E (54) UP00072-E-01 TYPE E (54) UP00072-E-02 TYPE F (12-15) UP00072-F-01 TYPE F (12-15) UP00072-F-02 TYPE F (55-58) UP00072-F-03 TYPE F (55-58) UP00072-F-04 TYPE F (52_53_64_65) UP00072-F-05 TYPE F (52_53_64_65) UP00072-F-06 TYPE G (71-72_81-82_86-87) UP00072-G-01 TYPE G (71-72_81-82_86-87) UP00072-G-02 TYPE G (1_2_22_23) UP00072-G-03 TYPE G (1_2_22_23) UP00072-G-04B TYPE G (31_66) UP00072-G-05A TYPE G (31_66) UP00072-G-06A TYPE G (32-33_89-90) UP00072-G-07 TYPE G (32-33_89-90) UP00072-G-08 TYPE G (43_79) UP00072-G-09B

Page 57

TYPE G (43_79) UP00072-G-10B TYPE G (47-49) UP00072-G-11A TYPE G (47-49) UP00072-G-12A TYPE G (45_46) UP00072-G-13 TYPE G (45_46) UP00072-G-14 TYPE G (83_84_85_60-63) UP00072-G-15 TYPE G (83_84_85_60-63) UP00072-G-16 TYPE G (64-66) UP00072-G-17 TYPE G (64-66) UP00072-G-18 TYPE G (51-53) UP00072-G-19 TYPE G (51-53) UP00072-G-20 TYPE H (4_88) UP00072-H-01 TYPE H (4_88) UP00072-H-02 TYPE H (25_38) UP00072-H-03A TYPE H (25_38) UP00072-H-04A TYPE H (44_50_78) UP00072-H-05A TYPE H (44_50_78) UP00072-H-06A TYPE H (59_73) UP00072-H-07 TYPE H (59_73) UP00072-H-08 TYPE H (3) UP00072-H-09 TYPE H (3) UP00072-H-10 TYPE I (24_26-30) UP00072-I-01A TYPE I (24_26-30) UP00072-I-02A TYPE J (5_21_67) UP00072-J-01 TYPE J (5_21_67) UP00072-J-02 TYPE J (20_70_76_77) UP00072-J-03 TYPE J (20_70_76_77) UP00072-J-04 TYPE K (18_19_74_75) UP00072-K-01 TYPE K (18_19_74_75) UP00072-K-02 TYPE K (8) UP00072-K-03A TYPE K (8) UP00072-K-04A TYPE L (6_68_69) UP00072-L-01 TYPE L (6_68_69) UP00072-L-02 TYPE L (7) UP00072-L-03A TYPE L (7) UP00072-L-04A TYPE L (80) UP00072-L-05A TYPE L (80) UP00072-L-06A TYPE M (12-14, 15-17) UP00072-M-01 TYPE M (12-14, 15-17) UP00072-M-02 TYPE M (41-42) UP00072-M-03 TYPE M (41-42) UP00072-M-04 GARAGES _ BIN STORE UP00072-X-01A SUB STATION UP00072-X-02 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. The development hereby approved shall be completed in accordance with the hard and soft landscaping on the following drawings: Hardworks Plan 1 of 2 & Detailed LAP JSL2321_211 Hardworks Plan 2 of 2 & Detailed LEAP JSL2321_212 Detailed Planting Plan Sheet 1 of 3 JSL2321_511 Detailed Planting Plan Sheet 2 of 3 JSL2321_512

Page 58

Detailed Planting Plan Sheet 3 of 3 JSL2321_513 Landscape Management Plan JSL2321_570D Tree Pit Details JSL2321_104A Tree Survey Report JSL_3048_770

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of each phase of development; and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. REASON: In the interest of the amenity and appearance of the location.

INFORMATIVE/ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT:

1. National Planning Policy Framework Statement In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive approach to development proposals and is focused on providing sustainable development. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:

 offering a pre-application advice service, and  as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

In this case:

The applicant/agent was updated of any issues and provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer.

2. This permission is subject to an agreement made pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dated 14 May, 2015 attached to outline planning permission Ref: 2/2014/0968/OUT

3. The proposed works directly affect Footpath N64/34 as shown on the enclosed plans. Consequently, the footpath must be diverted by legal order (TCPA) and that order must be confirmed before any works obstructing the path are commenced. If the path is obstructed in the absence of such a legal order this department will carry out enforcement action as deemed appropriate. The route suggested in the supporting documents would be suitable. (Adoptable Highway Public Right of Way Plan). The footpath however will need to be temporarily closed for the period of the works. Ideally an alternative route would be given. Also, even though the northern section of the route is not with in the development area this would be diverted on to a more suitable line as well. Please see attached map for suggested route.

The proposed new footpath should be to Dorset County Council’s current standards; 2m in width and with gates if required to the current British Standard (BS5709:2006) where necessary.

The free passage of the public on all rights of way must not be obstructed at any time. If the public are unlikely to be able to exercise their public rights on the above path then a Temporary Path Closure Order must be obtained. This can be applied for through this office

Page 59 but the application must be completed and returned at least thirteen weeks before the intended closure date.

4. The foul and surface water drainage strategy for this site is subject to Condition 3 under the outline approval.

The following comments are offered as guidance: • The site shall be served by separate systems of drainage constructed to current adoptable standards. For more information refer to Wessex Water’s guidance notes ‘DEV011G – Section 104 Sewer Adoption’ and ‘DEV016G – Sewer Connections’. • A foul connection to the public foul network can be agreed at detailed design stage in consultation with Wessex Water. Applicant should contact our local development engineer, [email protected] to agree proposals and submit details for technical review prior to construction. • The applicant has indicated surface water disposal via attenuation ponds to the River Lodden which will require the approval of the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency with supporting flood risk measures. • Elements of the surface water system can be offered for adoption by Wessex Water, details to be agreed. • Surface Water connections to the public foul sewer network will not be permitted. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge either directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system.

5. Conditions from 2/2014/0968/OUT: Please note that the Environment Agency state: there are a number of planning conditions that they wish to see formal consultation on (specifically conditions 3, 4 and 5) prior to discharge.

6. Other remaining outline planning conditions which require formal discharge of condition applications as follows:

3 - Scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water drainage

4 - Finished floor levels plans (1:200)

5 - Scheme for maintenance access to the River Lodden etc

6 - Details of the access, highway layout, turning and parking areas

7 - Scheme for 8 metre wide buffer zone alongside River Lodden etc

8 - Protection for water voles and otters and their associated habitats etc

9 - Specification for first 15m of the access crossing

13 - Landscape Maintenance

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

Page 60

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: 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. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/meeting-equality-duty-policy- and-decision-making-england-and-non-devolved Those with protected characteristics based on:- • Age • Transsexual • Married or in civil partnerships • Pregnant or on maternity leave (so mothers with buggies) • Race, including colour, nationality ethnic or national origin) • Religion or lack or religion • Sex • Sexual orientation The conclusion section of this report sets out how Taylor Wimpey and your Officers have payed due regard to the Public Sector Equalities Duty.

Page 61

LOCATION PLAN 2/2018/0483/REM TAYLOR WIMPEY SITE: LAND TO THE EAST OF LODDEN LAKES, NEW RD GILLINGHAM

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

Page 62 Agenda Item 8

East Stour

Application Type: Full Application Application No: 2/2018/0438/FUL

Applicant: Mr A. Boyd Case Officer: Mr James Lytton-Trevers

Recommendation Summary: Approve

Location: Little Meadow , Back Street, East Stour, SP8 5JY

Proposal: Erect replacement agricultural building and siting of polytunnel (retrospective).

Reason for Committee Decision:

The Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control) after consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, the Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee and the Ward Member(s) considers this is a matter which ought to be referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

Planning Policies:

Local Plan:

Policy 1 - Sustainable Devt. Policy 2 - C Spatial Strategy Policy 13 - Grey Infra. Policy 20 - The Countryside Policy 24 - Design Policy 25 - Amenity

Planning policy and guidance:

National Planning Policy Framework:

1. Introduction 2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Page 63 Description of Site:

The application site is a field located behind frontage residential development on the south side of Back Street, the main road through East Stour. The field is approximately 4 hectares bound by hedgerows on its eastern and southern side and the residential properties on the eastern side of Sandlands Close on its western side. The site is in agricultural use and forms part of a small holding. There was previously a smaller derelict agricultural building used as an animal shelter and fodder store positioned in the north east corner of the field. The site is accessed off Back Street via an existing track which currently serves the agricultural use of the field. The ground within the site slopes downwards in a southerly direction. It was observed on site that both the polytunnel and agricultural building have been constructed with the latter’s walls remaining to be infilled. The small holding of 4ha supports a mixed agricultural enterprise for the production of fruit and vegetables and the rearing of livestock (sheep and chickens).

Constraints:

Agricultural Land Grade - Grade: GRADE 3 Parish Name - : East Stour CP Settlement Boundary - Name: East Stour Ward Name - Ward Name: The Stours & Marnhull Ward

Consultations:

Stours And Marnhull Ward Consulted on the 9 May 2018 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Environmental Health Officer NDDC Consulted on the 20 August 2018, their comments dated 6 September 2018 are as follows: Objection Concerns of livestock leading to odour, noise (a professional noise report could be requested) and animal waste.

East Stour PC Consulted on the 9 May 2018, their comments dated 27 May 2018 are as follows: Objection If to be used for housing livestock. In addition: No effective drainage or storage for the amount of waste from the numbers of livestock on the holding; Proposed building is much larger in size than the previous derelict store building; No evidence that the proposed building is suitable for overwintering livestock; Access into B3092 from site is shared with private dwellings.

Enforcement Officer - NDDC Consulted on the 9 May 2018 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Transport Development Management - DCC Consulted on the 15 October 2018 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Page 64 Representations:

6 letters of representation were received, of which 0 offered comments which neither supported nor objected to the proposal, 4 objected to the proposal and 0 supported the proposal.

The barn is 10 times bigger than the former shed and too large; The access is shared and is single track leading out onto a busy main road on a blind bend and will lead to increased traffic; The housing of sheep, cattle and pigs are within 400m of residential; Water runoff will flood the A30; No details of removal of waste; Harmful to landscape; The applicant's justification is to house livestock over winter; The polytunnel is intrusive and unsightly; Impact on Light, noise/Disturbance and overlooking/loss of Privacy; Digging for utilities may affect tree roots; The new building has been built right up against the east hedgerow and two very large trees on the neighbouring property. A large section of hedgerow (approx 30m) that was situated along the side of the house, as well as the small animal shelter and fodder store, were both removed in early 2017 to develop this smallholding; No ecological assessment carried out for hedgehogs, badgers, foxes, owls and bats and birds; No proposals for long term maintenance and landscape management to ensure existing trees and other vegetation are retained and protected.

Relevant Planning History:

Application: 2/1989/1005 Proposal: Erect field shelter and fodder store Decision: Approve Decision Date: 18.01.1990

Application: 2/2018/1289/FUL Proposal: Erect 1No. replacement dwelling with ancillary accommodation (demolish existing). Decision: Pending decision

Planning Appraisal:

Description of Development

The application is seeking retrospective planning permission for the erection of a replacement agricultural building and the siting of poly tunnel. The proposed replacement agricultural building is sited in the north eastern corner of the field. The replacement building is approximately 12 metres wide, 13.5 metres long (total footprint of 162 square metres) with an eaves height of approximately 4.5 metres and a ridge height of approximately 6 metres. The building when finished is to be constructed of

Page 65 concrete lower walls with Yorkshire Boarding on the north and east elevations and feather edge cladding on the south and west elevations. The building is roofed in concrete sheets.

The replacement building is proposed to be used for the storage of tools and machinery as well as equipment used principally for producing fruit and vegetables. It is no longer proposed to be used for sheltering livestock over the winter of livestock giving birth, being infirm or requiring veterinary care. The statement submitted with the application stated that the applicant is intending to keep up to 50 breeding ewes in the proposed building over the winter which has been amended.

The polytunnel is sited further to the south of the replacement agricultural building close to the eastern edge of the field. The poly tunnel is proposed to be used for the growing of fruit and vegetables.

MAIN PLANNING ISSUES

- Principle of development - Impact on Character and Appearance of Surrounding Area - Impact on Residential Amenity - Impact on Highway Safety - Other matters

Principle of development:

Agricultural buildings are appropriate types of development for the countryside supported by policy 20 subject to site specific criteria.

The sizes proposed are not excessive and would be reasonable to serve the land to which they would relate.

Impact on Character and Appearance of Surrounding Area

The buildings are on agricultural land surrounded by the fields owned by the applicant to the south and by neighbours' gardens elsewhere. The buildings are clearly seen from the neighbours' houses and gardens but less so from the surrounding roads and from a public right of way some distance away.

These types of buildings are not exceptional in the countryside and are not overly prominent. Having a requirement to be sited near to the land which these will serve has to some extent dictated the location. There is no significant harm to landscape. There is no right to a view from the neighbours' houses and gardens.

Impact on Residential Amenity

The principle concerns in terms of noise, odour and general disturbance stem from the original intention to use the barn for overwintering livestock. This is no longer the case and a condition would be attached preventing the applicant from so doing. In this respect a noise survey is not needed. The storage of waste would not be an issue as there would be none associated with it. The use for storage would not attract undue noise, odour or disturbance.

Page 66 The barn and polytunnel do not lead to direct overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing for residential properties.

Impact on Highway Safety

There is an existing access onto the main road which is shared with dwellings. The use of the access for the land is established and while the types and intensity of agricultural practices may change, this is beyond the exercising of planning control. There is no objection to the continued use of this access to serve the land where there is no change of use proposed or other circumstances.

The Highways Officer was also consulted and comments have not been received.

Other matters

There is a known localised flooding issue on the A30 caused by surface water run off, some distance away from the proposal sites. It is too far away from these buildings and unlikely that the buildings would lead to significant increased run off entering the carriageway. The flooding issue in the A30 should be addressed separately.

It is unknown what trenches might be needed for utilities but it would be for the contractor to establish whether any trees would be affected and to take appropriate measures.

The near proximity of the barn to the neighbours' hedge and trees is noted but there is no evidence to suggest that this resulted in any detriment to tree or hedge health.

A biodiversity report was not required as the barn and polytunnel had been partially erected and were on agricultural land (with no special designation).

Conclusion:

The barn and polytunnel are reasonably required for serving the agricultural holding and the barn would not have detriment to amenity if not used for the housing of animals.

Recommendation: Approve

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly and only in accordance with the following approved drawings and details: B-AGB-EPP,LPP,SLP,BPP forming the approved application. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify the permission.

2. The barn, identified as building A on plan number B-AGB-BPP, shall not be used at any time for the housing of livestock. Reason: To safeguard amenity.

Page 67 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:

Page 68 LOCATION PLAN 2/2018/0438/FUL

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

Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Bourton

Application Type: Full Application Application No: 2/2018/0952/FUL

Applicant: Mr Neil Demmar Case Officer: Ms Katrina Trevett

Recommendation Summary: Approve

Location: East View Farm, New Road, Bourton, Gillingham, Dorset, SP8 5BQ

Proposal: Erect 1 No. dwelling, form vehicular access.

Reason for Committee Decision: At the request of the Ward Members in consultation with the Head of Service.

Description of Site:

East View Farm is situated within the centre of Bourton village, on the south side of the former A303 backing on to the top corner of Badgers Close; a cul-de-sac of modern build dwellings.

The application site is within the garden of East View Farmhouse and seeks to develop the land by the erection of a single two storey dwelling. Access into East View Farm will be modified so that the proposed dwelling will be accessed from there; no access will be gained from Badgers Close.

The site is within the Bourton Settlement Boundary and Blackmore Vale Landscape Character Area.

Planning Policies:

Local Plan:

Policy 1 - Sustainable Devt. Policy 2 - C Spatial Strategy Policy 4 - The Natural Env. Policy 6 - Housing Distribution Policy 20 - The Countryside Policy 23 - Parking Policy 24 - Design Policy 25 - Amenity

Planning policy and guidance:

The Bourton Neighbourhood Plan

The Bourton Neighbourhood Plan has been made and therefore the policies contained within it, where applicable, should be afforded full weight.

Page 71

The most relevant polices in relation to this application are Policy 2, Settlement Pattern and Character, Policy 3, Building Design and Form, and Policy 4, Traffic and Parking.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018

The NPPF has been updated with a revised version published on 23 July, 2018.

Paragraph 11 of the of the NPPF advises of the 'Presumption in favour of sustainable development'.

Section 5 'delivering a sufficient supply of homes' outlines the governments objective in respect of land supply. A sub-section 'Rural housing' at paragraphs 75 -77 reflects the requirement for development in rural areas.

Section 11 'Making effective use of land'

Section 15 'Achieving well designed places indicates that all development to be of a high quality in design, and the relationship and visual impact of it to be compatible with the surroundings. In particular, and amongst other things, Paragraphs 124 - 132 advise that:

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.

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.

Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

Further advice contained in the following sections of the NPPF is of relevance: Section 14 - Climate change - and where applicable - flooding and coastal change. Section 15- Natural Environment Section 16 - Historic Environment

Section 4. Decision taking: Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

Constraints:

Agricultural Land Grade - Grade: GRADE 3 Parish Name - : Bourton CP Settlement Boundary - Name: Bourton Ward Name - Ward Name: Motcombe & Bourton Ward

Consultations:

Motcombe And Bourton Ward Consulted on the 10 August 2018, their comments dated 24 August 2018 are as follows:

Page 72

1. Building on this site as proposed would constitute over-development. East View Farm has a modest sized garden - building on it as per the application would be inappropriate within a village setting.

2. The proposed dwelling would appear to be over-bearing in relation to the other properties within Badgers Close.

3. The proposed dwelling would overlook the garden of 7 Badgers Close resulting in significant loss of privacy for the owner.

4. The proposed dwelling would overlook 2 Badgers Close with loss of privacy for the owner.

It is requested that this application should either be refused under delegated authority or, failing that, be brought before NDDC's Planning Committee for consideration.

Bourton PC Consulted on the 10 August 2018 there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Tree Officer North - NDDC Consulted on the 10 August 2018 there was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Wessex Water Consulted on the 10 August 2018, their comments dated 14 August 2018 are as follows:

Transport Development Management - DCC Consulted on the 10 August 2018, their comments dated 3 September 2018 are as follows: No objection subject to conditions.

Representations:

2 letters of representation were received, of which 0 offered comments which neither supported nor objected to the proposal, 2 objected to the proposal and 0 supported the proposal.

The letters of objection contain the following summarised points:

 The impact on neighbours,  Loss of the tree,  Design,  Effect on the Appearance of Area,  Height,  Heritage,  Impact on Light,  Landscape,  Noise/Disturbance,  Overlooking/Loss of Privacy,  Trees.

Relevant Planning History: Application: 2/2018/0502/FUL Proposal: Erect 1 No. dwelling, form vehicular access. Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 03.05.2018

Page 73

Planning Appraisal:

Principle of development

Having regard to its position within the Bourton settlement boundary, any proposals for residential development are supported by Policy 2 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1, in principle, subject to other material planning considerations.

This site is clearly within the village and will be neighboured by other residential properties.

Policy 2 of the Bourton Neighbourhood Plan, seeks to ensue that new development has regard to the spatial characteristics of the locality. It is considered that the proposed infill dwelling is not at odds with the prevailing settlement pattern in this part of the village.

Policy 3 of the Bourton Neighbourhood Plan, seeks to ensure that all new development reinforces the underlying vernacular or character of its particular context. Furthermore, all new development shall complement the character and appearance of surrounding properties in terms of height, scale and density.

In this case, the use of materials, scale, form and the spatial relationship within the sites context is considered by officers to be acceptable. This is discussed further in the design section below.

Planning history

Planning permission was previously sought to erect a dwelling on this site but subsequently withdrawn given concerns raised over access and the position of the dwelling - application number 2/2018/0502.

This scheme has reworked the proposal, altering the position of the dwelling so its front elevation is angled away from its neighbour to the south and now faces north west with the rear facing south east. This change in position ensures that any concerns over future overlooking are diminished. The front windows will have no view into number 6 Badger Close' garden and the rear windows will overlook its own garden and the blank side wall of number 6.

The access arrangements have also now changed with the demolition of the storage sheds and the formation of a dedicated access driveway next to the original farm access; there will be no access off of Badgers Close and the boundary treatments as is will remain to prevent access in future.

The design of the proposed dwelling has remained the same to ensure continuity with the modern, simple building style of Badgers Close.

Impact on amenities of the site & surrounding area

Careful consideration has been given to the various comments that have been received by both neighbours. In relation to Number 6, the closest neighbour to this site, situated to the south the impact on this property is considered as follows:

Design/Height/Overlooking/light loss - Having regard to the position of the new dwelling north of number 6, it is considered that this scheme will not diminish light to the neighbour given daylight patterns. It is acknowledged that a two storey building can have a overbearing impact when developed close to an existing property; this can be exacerbated by changing levels . However, in this case the new position of the dwelling being angled away, the height of the existing boundary treatment to be retained and that only a small proportion of the dwelling will protrude beyond the rear building line of number 6 means that very little of the new property will be visible from rear windows of number 6 and will have minimal overbearing impact on their rear amenity space.

Page 74

There will be a small hallway light window at first floor on the south elevation of the new property; this will look towards the neighbours blank north wall but will be over a staircase and views out of it will not be easily achieved in any case.

The existing boundary treatments are to remain as is; the neighbour at number 6 controls the southern boundary and it will be in their interest to retain it. The east boundary is controlled by the applicant and they are agreeable that a boundary treatment condition can be added to any grant of planning permission to ensure its retained to prevent access on to Badgers Close.

However, it would be unreasonable and unenforceable to attach a condition relating to existing treatment. Therefore, consideration of harm of the removal of the boundary treatment has to be considered. This is considered under highway safety further in the report.

Trees

The trees officer has no comments to make on this scheme. The Beech tree within the existing garden is to be removed but given that significant works have been carried out to it, there is considered to be no harm in it now being removed. Further landscaping is not necessary given the enclosed nature of the garden; there would no wider benefit in conditioning planting.

Design

The overall scale and proportions of the dwelling are considered acceptable. The simple, modest style reflects other properties within the village whilst not being overly small and restrictive; the plot size reflects others in the locality and is of similar scale to number 6 Badgers Close, its neighbour.

In the wider landscape, the new property will be relatively discreet given its north east facing frontage down a private driveway and rear elevation obscured by the existing east boundary treatment. The glimpses of the rear elevation in public view will reflect its position next to the cul-de-sac of dwellings in Badgers Close.

Impact on highway safety

The Highways Authority has no concerns over this scheme. They had no concerns with the previously withdrawn scheme.

It would be unreasonable for the Council to control the east boundary of the site as it is existing. The formation of a new access on the eastern boundary would be permitted development in future but as no concerns have been raised by the highways department and on visiting the site, a new access here would not cause significant harm to highway safety (although may reduce parking convenience for neighbours) in the small cul-d-sac, this is considered an acceptable outcome.

Conclusion:

The proposal of a single dwelling here with new access is considered acceptable and a suitable compromise in place of the previously withdrawn scheme.

The new positioning overcomes previous overlooking issues in relation to number 7 Badgers Close . The site is relatively discreet so the development of the plot and resulting garden area for the former farmhouse will not be greatly viewed by the wider public however, its considered acceptable and not over development. The distance between the new dwelling and the neighbour directly opposite at number 2 Badgers Close is acceptable and considered standard in development design; therefore, objections relating to overlooking are not sustained.

Therefore, it complies with development plan policies and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Page 75

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions.

Conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development shall hereby proceed in accordance with the approved plans: 1440/1A - Site & Location Plan 1440/1/2 - Proposed floor plans & elevations

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify the permission.

3. No development shall be commenced above damp proof course until details and samples of all external facing materials for the walls and roof shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.

4. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 1440/1A must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified. Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

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:

Page 76

LOCATION PLAN 2/2018/0952/FUL

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

Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

Shaftesbury

Application Type: Householder planning Application No: 2/2018/1005/HOUSE application

Applicant: Mr Anthony Proctor Case Officer: Mr Philip Longhurst

Recommendation Summary: Approve

Location: Walled Garden , 15 Parsons Pool, Shaftesbury, SP7 8AL

Proposal: Erect 1 No. single storey extension.

Reason for Committee Decision:

Applicant is related to an elected member.

Planning Policies:

Local Plan:

Policy 1 - Sustainable Devt. Policy 2 - C Spatial Strategy Policy 5 - The Historic Env. Policy 18 - Shaftesbury Policy 24 - Design Policy 25 - Amenity

Planning policy and guidance:

National Planning Policy Framework:

As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant;

Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

Part 12 - Achieving well-designed places Part 16 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Page 79

Description of Site:

The application site is a large dwelling within the Shaftesbury conservation area. Permission for the host dwelling was given in 2005 (2/2005/0285) and since the completion further land has been acquired at the rear. The dwelling is partly enclosed by a listed boundary wall (to south and west). The property is also adjacent to a listed building, No. 13 Parson's Pool, located to the south-west.

Constraints:

Agricultural Land Grade - Grade: GRADE 3 Agricultural Land Grade - Grade: GRADE 4 Conservation Area - The Shaftesbury Conservation Area Grade II Listed - LB Grade: II LB Number: 1/71a Parish Name - : Shaftesbury CP Settlement Boundary - Name: Shaftesbury TPO - Charge Description: The County of Dorset (Shaftesbury No. 2) 45/2/58 Tree Preservation Order 1958, made on 29 April 1958 and confirmed on 31 March 1960. Ward Name - Ward Name: Shaftesbury West Ward

Consultations:

Shaftesbury TC Consulted on the 23 August 2018, their comments dated 26 September 2018 are as follows: No Objection.

Conservation Officer South - NDDC Consulted on the 23 August 2018, their comments dated 4 October 2018 are as follows: No Comment

Environment Agency Consulted on the 23 August 2018 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Tree Officer Majors Consulted on the 23 August 2018 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Shaftesbury West Ward Consulted on the 23 August 2018 There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation.

Representations:

There were no letters of representation.

Relevant Planning History:

Application: 2/2005/0285 Proposal: Erect 1 no dwelling, garage and create vehicular access Decision: Approve Decision Date: 04.05.2005

Page 80

Application: 2/2018/0598/CATREE Proposal: T1 - Lawson cypress - Fell T2 - Portuguese Laurel - Fell Decision: Approve Decision Date: 05.06.2018

Planning Appraisal:

PLANNING ISSUES o Design o Amenity o Access and parking o Listed building o Conservation Area o Protected trees

ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY Design The proposal is for a single storey rear (north-east) extension projecting into the new garden space backing onto properties within Haimes Lane. The proposal shall create a ground floor bedroom with ground floor access. The proposal shall have floor-ceiling wrap around windows on the north and east corners whilst the south-east elevation shall have a continuation of the glazing along the entirety of the elevation and the north-west elevation shall have a single door. The proposed hipped roof shall incorporate a small glazed apex and run back into a catslide roof drawn down from the main house eaves. The proposed materials shall be black finish weatherboarding and brick matching the existing dwellinghouse whilst the roof shall be plain tile. The use of composite weatherboard is deemed acceptable on the development due to the proposed material being of high quality and positioned within a location that is not visible from within the public realm. The proposed development is considered to be in scale with the main dwelling and would appear as a subservient addition to the dwelling. It would therefore not have an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the character of the site or locality.

Amenity The proposal will present no detriment to the current levels of enjoyment experienced by neighbouring properties, in terms of any perceived loss of privacy, increase in noise levels or any reduction in the current levels of daylight and sunlight experienced by them.

Access and parking The proposal would not compromise road safety and there is sufficient parking.

Listed building The proposed development is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the nearby listed buildings nor the listed boundary wall that partly encloses the site to the south and west.

Conservation Area The proposal is considered to preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area. This conclusion has been reached having regard to: (1) section 72(1) of the

Page 81

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area; and (2) Local Plan policy.

Protected trees There are two trees within proximity to the proposed extension in which permission was recently given to remove them both (2/2018/0598/CATREE).

RECOMMENDATION Approve with conditions.

Conclusion:

The proposal would be of acceptable design and would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, would not lead to harm to the setting of heritage assets and would comply with Local Plan policies 5 and 24.

Recommendation: Approve Conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly and only in accordance with the following approved drawings and details: Site Plan 2863 - 1801 Location Plan 2863 - 1806 Rev A Roof/Attic Plan 2863 - 1802 Floor Plan - Ground 2863 - 1803 North East/ North West Elevations 2863 - 1805 South East Elevation 2863 - 1804 South East Elevation 1804 Superimposed on existing ; forming the approved application. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify the permission.

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.

Page 82

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:

Page 83

LOCATION PLAN 2/2018/1005/HOUSE

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

Page 84 Agenda Item 11 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – 6th November 2018 PLANNING APPEALS

Report of Development Services Manager

APPEALS LODGED BETWEEN 28th September 2018 – 25th October 2018

Hopkins Developments Ltd Erect 8 No. dwellings, form new vehicular and pedestrian access and create 15 No. parking spaces. Written 2/2017/1572/FUL Cross's Garage, Representation Templecombe Lane To Hartmoor Hill BUCKHORN WESTON

PSP North Dorset LLP Develop land by the erection of 3 No. dwellings. Form vehicular access and parking for each unit and form Written 2/2018/0424/OUT landscaped public open space. (Outline application to Representation determine access, layout and scale). Land North Of Mary Gardens, OKEFORD FITZPAINE

Ms Deanne Tremlett Erect 1 No. dwelling and double garage with studio above, form vehicular access and parking. Written 2/2018/0263/FUL Representation Land East Of The Butts, Rowden Mill Lane, STOURTON CAUNDLE . Mr D Ford Develop land by the erection of up to 6 No. dwellings. (Outline application with all matters reserved). Written 2/2018/0447/OUT Land At Goddards Farm Representation B3143 - Blackrow Lane To Holwell Road KINGS STAG

Manston LVA LLP Develop land by the erection of 5 No. dwellings (up to 1,000sqm gross floorspace) with associated parking, access and landscaping. Written 2/2017/1761/OUT Land At E 381250 N 115500, B3091 - Hosey Bridge To Representation Shaftesbury Road, MANSTON

Page 85 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED 28th September 2018 – 25th October 2018

DECISION APPEAL P.A. No APPLICANT/PROPOSAL LEVEL DECISION Mr M Oxberry Remove part of rear wall, erect single storey extension, insert 3 No. inverted dormers, raise level of cat slide roof and 2/2017/1754/HOUSE carry out associated internal and external alterations. DELEGATED ALLOWED Erect single storey extension and install 2/2017/1755/LBC bay window. Havelins Farm House, Havelins, STOURPAINE

Conversion of barns into 2 No. dwellings, erect 2 No. detached carports and 6 No. parking spaces. Erect replacement 2/2017/1016/FUL smaller agricultural storage building DELEGATED ALLOWED (demolish 2 No. agricultural buildings). Chisel Farm, Handford, CHILD OKEFORD

Mr C Carpenter Erect 1 No. dwelling and double garage with studio above, form vehicular access 2/2017/1982/AGDWPA DELEGATED DISMISSED and parking. Bowridge Farm North Barn, GILLINGHAM

APPEALS WITHDRAWN BETWEEN 28th September 2018 – 25th October 2018 P.A. No. APPLICANT/PROPOSAL None

COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE COUNCIL BETWEEN 28th September 2018 – 25th October 2018 P.A. No. APPLICANT/PROPOSAL DECISION DECISION LEVEL None COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE APPELLANTS BETWEEN 28th September 2018 – 25th October 2018 P.A. No. APPLICANT/PROPOSAL None

Page 86