APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/18/000116
APPLICATION SITE: Land north of Pound Road, Thornford
PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential development of up to 35 dwellings & associated infrastructure
APPLICANT: Sherborne Castle Estates
CASE OFFICER: Robert Lennis
WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr R A S Legg, Cllr M Lawrence
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Grant conditional planning permission
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
1.1 The application site comprises 1.9ha of pasture land bordered by hedgerows along its northern and southern boundaries. It shares a boundary with, and is located to the north-east of, Thornford. There is an existing field gate access to the site from Pound Road.
1.2 Thornford Parish has a population of approximately 840. The village benefits from a good range of services and facilities including primary school, general grocers and post office, public house, village hall and fuel station/garage. The nearby settlements of Yeovil and Sherborne have an extended range of facilities and amenities available, including a range of major supermarkets. The closest comprehensive school and sixth form, The Gryphon School, is in Sherborne.
1.3 The village of Thornford is located approximately 4 miles to the south west of Sherborne and 6 miles from the larger town of Yeovil.
1.4 Pound Road has a pedestrian footway on the northern side of the road which leads into the centre of the village and currently terminates at the corner of the site. There is a railway station on the outskirts of the village, 1.7km to the southwest of the site. The station is on the Bristol to Weymouth line.
2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:
2.1 This is an outline application which seeks to agree the principle of residential development of up to 35 dwellings along with approval of access details. Matters relating to the details of layout, appearance, landscaping, and scale are reserved for future consideration should permission be granted.
2.2 Affordable housing (35%) is to be agreed by way of a section 106 legal agreement.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
3.1 None.
4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.2 The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2018 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
4.3 Paragraph 11 states that for decision-taking this means:
approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or
where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: o the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or o 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.
4.4 The NPPF also states that: 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. (Para. 38)
4.5 Other sections of the NPPF of particular relevance to this application are listed below. 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
4.6 West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted 2015)
4.7 The following policies are considered to be most relevant to this case: INT1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development ENV1 - Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest ENV 2 - Wildlife and Habitats ENV8 - Agricultural Land and Farming Resilience ENV10 - The Landscape and Townscape Setting ENV11 - The Pattern of Streets and Spaces ENV15 - Efficient and Appropriate Use of Land SUS2 - Distribution of Development HOUS1 - Affordable Housing COM1 - Making Sure New Development Makes Suitable Provision for Community Infrastructure COM7 - Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network
5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
5.1 Joint Annual Monitoring Report West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland (2016/17)
5.2 Planning Obligations Guidelines (2010)
5.3 West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment (2009)
6. HUMAN RIGHTS:
6.1 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 as per:
Article 1 – The first protocol; Protection of property. Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home.
7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:
7.1 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.
7.2 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.
8. CONSULTATIONS:
8.1 Ministry of Defence has no safeguarding objections.
8.2 Health and Safety Executive has raised no objections.
8.3 Scottish Gas Network has raised no objections.
8.4 DCC as Local Highway Authority has no objections subject to conditions.
8.5 DCC as Lead Local Flood Authority has no objections subject to conditions.
8.6 DCC Planning Obligations Manager has no comments based on the understanding that this application is CIL liable.
8.7 DCC Nature Conservation Team has no objections subject to the biodiversity mitigation plan submitted with the application being a matter of a bespoked condition with any approval.
8.8 Yeohead & Castleton Group Parish Council has raised no objections.
8.9 Thornhackett Parish Council (TPC) has raised concerns and objections to the proposal. We are informed that TPC “…held a public meeting on Monday 12th March 2018 at Thornford Village Hall. The meeting was attended by 58 local residents. A vote taken at the end of the meeting resulted in 30 residents against the application and 17 for. Therefore we object to this application on the following grounds.”
8.10 A summary of their concerns relate to: precedent for future development, Policy SUS2 of the Local Plan, traffic, buses and transportation, sewerage and drainage, the use of Green Lane and Drove Road which are not public highways, wildlife, the need for affordable housing in this village, and loss of greenfield space. Their comments are set out in full here:
“The proposed site is located on the north-eastern edge of Thornford within a Greenfield site and would lie outside the defined development boundary of Thornford. Thereby creating a precedent for future extended pockets of development by extending the defined development boundary. The District Council currently has a 5 year housing land supply and therefore its policies are up to date for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework. Development outside the DDB is strictly controlled and restricted to that identified in Policy SUS2 of the adopted West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan. No overriding justification for making an exception to this policy has been made in the application and therefore in the light of the accepted housing land supply the proposal is contrary to Policy SUS2.
Issues raised were additional traffic volume through Thornford and the extra traffic flow from Yetminster development of around 80 additional house.
The lack of public bus transport and dependency on cars.
There is the “Nordcat” charity bus limited to bus pass holders, disabled and disadvantaged people running on a Thursday from Thornford via other villages to Sherborne allowing a period of two hours to carry out shopping then return. A similar run on a Tuesday and Saturday to Yeovil another two hour visit. Apart from that bus the taxi single journey Thornford to Sherborne is £7 and single to Yeovil £13 making it very expensive for limited income families and young people.
The supporting text to Policy SUS2 of the LP sets out that the ‘resulting dependency on cars would inevitably increase carbon emissions and disadvantage those who don’t have a car (usually the more vulnerable groups in our society), which is why it makes sense to try to focus development at the towns’. Consequently, lack of public transport weighs against the proposal, as does the heavy reliance on a private motor vehicle.
There was concern expressed about the effect of developments on the sewerage drains within the village as there are already issues with sewerage seeping at some sites in the village. It was also noted that the Wessex Water sewerage site close to Thornford also takes effluent from Yetminster and the pipes currently used are no more than 6 inch diameter.
It was noted that Highways consultation have taken note of the proposal to use the “Green Lane” “The Drove” despite it not being a public right of way. There was objection this due to the historic drove road and environmental issues with regard to native plant species, insects, birds and mammals
Thornford Halt Railway Station is good 20 minute walk from the development site and with very limited parking facility and no rail connection to Sherborne.
Having regard to affordable housing in respect of local needs before any potential site is considered, it is essential to determine how many identifiable local people are in need of affordable housing and what they are able to afford. The overall average house price in Thornford is £262,083.
The proposed development would not result in a benefit in environmental and landscape terms, to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable Greenfield space.”
8.11 Housing Enabling Team has noted that the proposal would provide a policy compliant 35% affordable housing. There is a need for affordable housing in Thornford and the adjacent Parishes and this proposal would help meet that need.
8.12 Urban Design Officer has raised no objections. This is an outline application indicative layout could be improved upon and should not be seen to set a precedent.
8.13 Landscape and Trees Officer has raised no objections to the proposal subject to a condition regarding future planting. ***
8.14 Technical Services has raised no objections.
9. REPRESENTATIONS:
9.1 Eleven letters of representations were received. Several of the representations were predicated on the principle of development being acceptable but had concerns with the detail of the proposal. Other representations offered no support. The concerns and objections raised relate to the following: Setting precedent for development outside the designated development boundary; Highway safety, volume of traffic, and street parking; Lack of Infrastructure (public transport, schools, shops, roads, etc); Drainage and flooding; Ecology and habitat; Scale of development; Sustainability credentials; Access and use of other roads; Landscaping and character of the village; Noise and disruption; Poor location for access;
10. PLANNING ISSUES:
10.1 This application seeks to establish the principle of development and approval of access details. As such, some of the issues raised by the TPC and in representations cannot be addressed at this time.
10.2 The main issues of this case are considered to relate to the following: 5 year housing land supply Policy SUS2 and principle of development Affordable housing Highway matters Flood risk Ecology Other planning matters
11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT: Headings from above list plus Other matters
5 year housing land supply
11.1 The Council cannot, at the present time, demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as set out in the Joint Annual Monitoring Report 2016/17. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged.
11.2 This means that our Local Plan policies in relation to housing proposals are not up-to-date and that planning permission should be granted unless there are protected areas or assets of particular importance associated with the site which provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or, any adverse impacts from allowing the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
11.3 This site is not part of a protected area, nor does it have assets of a particular importance. In this regard, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts from allowing the proposed development that could be said to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of boosting the supply of housing.
Policy SUS2 and the principle of development
11.4 In light of our current housing land supply, Policy SUS2 is not up-to-date and cannot be given full weight.
11.5 Policy SUS2 is intend to guide development to the most appropriate locations in the district. It states in part that “…Development in rural areas will be directed to the settlements with defined development boundaries and will take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement…”
11.6 Thornford has a defined development boundary (DDB). While the proposed development site is not within the DDB it does share a boundary with the settlement and should be seen as an extension to the settlement rather than isolated development in the countryside. The site is currently used as arable land bounded by hedge rows. There are no particular landscape or ecological designations associate with the site.
11.7 In terms of appropriate scale, the population of Thornford is approximately 840 people. The proposed development of up to 35no. dwelling would add approximately 80 more people (35 * 2.3 (average household size)); less than 10 percent.
11.8 The proposed scale is not considered to be inappropriate.
Affordable housing
11.9 The applicant is offering 35% of the dwellings to be affordable housing of which 70% will be social/affordable rent and 30% intermediate affordable housing. This is compliant with policy (approximately 12no. homes).
11.10 The provision of affordable housing should be given significant weight in the planning balance.
Highway matters
11.11 The County Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal. Conditions to ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site are sought in relation to details of future road access to the public highway, and details of internal road layout including turning and parking areas.
Flood risk
11.12 On the basis of the additional clarification provided, and improved understanding of the (conceptual) strategy of surface water management (SWM) provided, Dorset County Council’s Flood Risk Management team have withdrawn their objection, subject conditions and informative(s).
11.13 The conditions seek detailed information about the SWM, and details about maintenance and management.
Ecology
11.14 The County’s Natural Environment Team are satisfied with the submitted biodiversity mitigation plan (BMP) and have issued a signed certificate saying as much.
11.15 The proposed development should be conditioned to be carried out in accordance with the submitted BMP.
Other planning matters
11.16 The proposed development is CIL liable. Contributions will be collected in accordance with this Council’s published guidance.
11.17 Contributions towards the designation of a local area of play along with management and maintenance are part of the ongoing negotiation of the section 106 legal agreement.
11.18 This is an outline application to agree the principle of development and access only. The details regarding appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale will need to be considered at the reserved matter stage.
12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:
12.1 Overall it is considered that this development broadly accords with the provision of the development plan as only limited weight should be given to policy SUS2 which is out-of-date as we are unable to demonstrate a 5 year HLS.
12.2 The concerns and objections of the parish council have been noted above, as well as local residents.
12.3 With the exception of the parish council, no objections have been raised by any of the relevant statutory consultees.
12.4 It is considered that there are no clear reason to refuse this application, nor any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole.
13. RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning authority to approve subject to: (a) a section 106 agreement; and (b) the following conditions:
1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans submitted by the applicant: - Site plan 160701 L 01 01 - Proposed Site Access 001/4255 Rev B - Proposed Drainage Strategy 200 Rev B
2. Prior to occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the geometric highway layout of the access as shown on Drawing Number 001/4255 Revision A must be constructed. Thereafter, this must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
3. Prior to any development details of the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site.
4. Prior to any development a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development and confirmation of the existing drainage infrastructure shall be and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details before the development is completed. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding or overwhelming of existing drainage infrastructure, and to protect water quality.
5. No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been 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 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.
6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (dated 15/01/2018 and signed 16.01.2018). Reason: To ensure adequate mitigation and management of the ecological concerns related to the site.
Informativies:
1. All works to a channel with the status of Ordinary Watercourse, that offer or create an obstruction to flow, are likely to require prior Land Drainage Consent from Dorset County Council, in accordance with s23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
2. Developer-Led Infrastructure - The applicant is advised that, notwithstanding this consent, if it is intended that the highway layout be offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant should contact Dorset County Council’s Development team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at Development team, Dorset Highways, Environment and the Economy, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
3. No traffic calming measures are required by the County Highway Authority as part of this proposal.