Planning Committee 22 March, 2018 WD/D/17/000800

Application Number: WD/D/17/000800 Outline

Registration Date: 5 April, 2017

Application Site: LAND SOUTH OF FULLERS, BRIDPORT ROAD, BROADWINDSOR

Proposal: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 22 dwellings, formation of access, on-site parking provision and associated works (amended scheme)

Applicant: Mrs Whyte and Finlay

Ward Members: Cllr Mrs J Sewell

Case Officer: Robert Burden

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Delegate approval to Head of Planning subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement.

2. Description of development 2.1 The site lies on the southern edge of Broadwindsor, on the west side of the B3162 Bridport Road. The 0.86 hectare site comprises agricultural grazing land and includes a bank/hedge which runs east-west across the more southern portion of the site. The site is elevated above the road level by about 2m. The eastern side of the site has a wide ridge which rises from the north site edge rising to the south edge. The western side of the site slopes downwards away to the west.

2.2 The site is bounded to the north by the gardens of the two storey housing in Fullers. The dwellings are of brick with tiled roofs. This boundary is fronted in part by an intermittent ditch, with a c 2m high bank/hedgerow running along to the west. The east boundary fronts the B3162 Bridport Road and comprises a c 3m high bank with a native species hedgerow. Opposite is two storey residential cottage-style development, mainly associated with Redlands Lane. These include local stone, render, with tiled slate or thatched roofs. The southern site boundary is defined by a c 1.8m native hedgerow. There is an existing vehicular access into the field at the south-east corner with a two storey dwelling - Leweston View opposite. An established bank/hedgerow runs roughly east-west across the site in the more southern half of the site. The western site boundary is not currently defined by any physical feature - being simply the edge of the red site area shown. 2.3 This is an outline planning application with all matters reserved, apart from the access to the site which is from the B3162. The application was originally submitted for 32 dwellings. In the light of the comments and responses received the applicant decided to amend the application by reducing the number of dwellings from 32 to 22 but keeping the same site area. The dwellings are suggested as being of two storey design with an illustrative layout provided.

3. Main planning issues · Residential development outside Defined Development Boundary · Housing Land Supply and the "tilted balance" · Sustainability · Effect on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and visual amenity · Effect on setting of heritage assets · Foul and surface water drainage · Residential amenity · Ecological issue · Highway safety

4. Statutory Consultations

Parish/Town Council 4.1 Comments on original 32 unit scheme: Broadwindsor Group Parish Council has consulted widely on this planning application. The application was discussed at two Council Meetings on 8 May and on 12 June 2017, both meetings were well attended by members of the public. Due to the strength of feeling, an additional public meeting was convened on 30 May. A representative from West Dorset District Council Planning Department and a representative of the applicant were both invited to attend, but declined. The public meeting was attended by over a hundred members of the local community and after a show of hands, the overwhelming majority strongly objected to the application. A copy of the meeting notes has also been submitted with these comments. Broadwindsor Group Parish Council has a duty to represent the views of its parishioners and for this reason, the Council objects to this outline planning application. The Parish Council very much supports the development of Broadwindsor as a vibrant and sustainable community. However, it is important that any development should still allow the village and surrounding area to retain and not compromise its unique character, heritage and natural assets. There is local support for additional housing in the village, most notably affordable housing within a smaller scale development, to support young people and their families. The Broadwindsor Group Parish Community Land Trust was established for this very reason and is working with the community to ensure both a sensitive expansion and genuine affordability. Neighbourhood Planning is a way for local communities to shape the place where they live, giving them a chance to say what they want for their village now and in the future. Although the Neighbourhood Plan for the Grouped Parish Area has not yet been adopted and does not form part of the current Planning policy, the published results of the questionnaire (which had a 60% return rate), states ‘clear opposition to a large development’. The Parish Council is aware that due to the recent approval of a large-scale development within the West Dorset area, there is no longer a shortage of housing land supply There have been many well-presented and detailed submissions from parishioners in response to this application, much to the credit of members of the local community who have taken the time to read, consider and research as well as engage with others in the village. The Council’s corporate view will seek to summarise rather than duplicate these comments. Broadwindsor Group Parish Council would ask West Dorset District Council to consider the following factors when considering this application. AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY The land in question lies within an identified Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and as such should be protected as a special place. Any development will inevitably impact on the attraction of Lewesdon Hill, an ancient hill fort which is a National Trust Property. The Parish Council has noted that Dorset AONB has not been included as a statutory consultee for this application and believes that their input is extremely important. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY The proposed development will result in a dramatic change in the residential amenity of properties bordering on the development, in Fullers, Redlands Lane/Bridport Road and Lewesdon View. These homes and gardens provide much enjoyment for their occupants, including peace and quiet, sounds of nature, absence of light pollution and privacy. Given the topography of the site, any development would be elevated and for the most part (especially along the boundaries with existing properties) any dwellings at all, and certainly any higher than single storey, would be oppressive and result in a loss of privacy. NATURE CONSERVATION The land in question provides a unique habitat for a diverse range of wildlife and the proposed development will have a detrimental effect on this wonderful ecosystem. A detailed description of the habitat has been provided by Mr. Kevin Brookes, within his correspondence submission. SEWERAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND DRAINAGE The current sewerage infrastructure serving Broadwindsor is completely inadequate and not fit for purpose. Additional dwellings will serve to increase the burden on this failing system. Major improvements to the infrastructure are needed. There is also deep concern that surface water run-off which if allowed to enter the stream to the west of the development will significantly increase the risk of property flooding. As a consultee, Dorset Highways Flood Management Team has stated that based on the limited information provided to them, that they recommend that a holding objection be applied to the application, pending the supply and acceptance of further clarification and outline of a deliverable scheme of surface water management. HIGHWAYS The development will inevitably adversely affect highway safety. Access from the proposed development onto the B3162 would be extremely dangerous due to limited visibility. The Parish Council does not believe that this is a viable access point. Approaches to Broadwindsor in all directions involve narrow, single-carriageway stretches of road used regularly by agricultural vehicles, milk tankers and the occasional bus. A new development of this size would bring upwards of forty vehicles to those roads together with the assorted delivery vehicles of daily life. The narrowest width of the carriageway in the vicinity of the site is barely 5.5m, the minimum required to enable all types of vehicle to pass each other. It will not be possible to protect the mature hedge, maintain the road width and create a pavement that is wide enough to allow pedestrians to walk in safety. There is deep concern that Redlands Lane will be used as a short cut for vehicles between the proposed site heading towards/from Beaminster, this will be dangerous for local residents in particular children who live and use Redlands Lane. The Design and Access Statement does not quantify the number of allocated parking spaces for the development, only seven properties are shown to have garages. There needs to be parking provision for in excess of sixty vehicles as most households will have two vehicles; necessary in an area such as Broadwindsor for residents to be able to access wider facilities.

LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE There was much concern about the ability of the local infrastructure to cope with the increase in population in terms of transport, school, highways and health service provision.

Parish Council Comments on revised 22 unit scheme: Broadwindsor Group Parish Council has once again consulted widely on this application and carefully reviewed the revised supporting documentation. There is strong opposition to this application within the community, not just from those living close to the site but from across the Grouped Parish area and a real sense of disappointment that the applicant has not chosen to engage with local people. The Parish Council has a duty to represent the views of its parishioners and for this reason, the Council objects to this outline planning application. The Parish Council would ask that its original comments as submitted to West Dorset District Council on 13 June be considered alongside this response. The Parish Council would like to inform West Dorset District Council that the 40 Bus Service has now been withdrawn from Broadwindsor and therefore there is no local transport provision for the village. The Parish Council would ask that the applicant’s Transport Statement (3.4 Public Transport Accessibility) be amended to reflect this change. There is local support for additional housing in the Broadwindsor, most notably affordable housing within a smaller scale development. However, there is an overwhelming and steadfast recognition that the proposed site is just not suitable. The land in question lies within an identified Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and as such should be protected as a special place. The most recent consultation with the local community has reinforced previous concerns relating to the elevation of the development, the inability of the local infrastructure including sewerage to cope with the size of the proposed development, highway safety and the considerable negative impact on local wildlife. Highway Authority 4.2 The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following conditions:

Outline Estate Road Construction (adopted or private) No development must commence until details of the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site

INFORMATIVE NOTE: 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.

Visibility splays as shown Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the visibility splay areas as shown on Drawing Number TW15/121/1C must be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.60 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas 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.

Vehicle access construction Before the development is occupied or utilised the first 15.00 metres of the vehicle 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.

Grampian condition Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the following works must have been constructed to the specification of the Local Planning Authority:

The proposed traffic calming scheme, as shown on Drawing Number BTC16047/P02/P2 attached to the Transport Assessment as Appendix D, or similar scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: These specified works are seen as a pre-requisite for allowing the development to proceed, providing the necessary highway infrastructure improvements to mitigate the likely impact of the proposal.

Construction traffic management plan to be submitted Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP must include: • construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) • a programme of construction works and anticipated deliveries • timings of deliveries so as to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods • contractors’ arrangements (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 The development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan. Reason: 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.

Comments on amended plans- Previous recommended conditions still apply, but layout now submitted would require some minor amendment to meet full adoption status.

5. Other consultations

5.1 WDDC Technical Services- With regards to this application I wish to comment as follows. The site is located in flood zone 1 – low probability of flooding according the EA flood risk maps. The EA’s surface water flood maps also indicate that the surface water flood risk is very low. According to our records we are also unaware of any previous flooding incidents to adjacent properties at this location. Due to the size of the development, I would advise that you refer to the consult provided by DCC who have commented on the surface water management aspects in their role as Lead Local Flood Authority.

5.2 DCC Lead Local Flood Authority- Thank you for consulting Dorset County Council’s (DCC) Flood Risk Management (FRM) team regarding the surface water drainage proposals for the above mentioned planning application, which represents major development given the number of proposed dwellings (up to 32) and total site area (0.86 ha). It is appropriate that we are consulted with specific regard to the surface water drainage proposals for such major development as defined within Article 2(1) of the Town & Country Planning, Development Management Procedure, England Order 2015. DCC act as the relevant Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) in this matter, having adopted the role of statutory consultee for surface water management in April 2015.

The site falls entirely within Flood Zone 1 (low risk / fluvial flooding) as indicated by the Environment Agency’s (EA) indicative flood modelling, and is not thought to be at (theoretical) risk of surface water flooding during severe rainfall events.

The (existing) greenfield site is understood to generate runoff which migrates largely west, towards a channel with the status of Ordinary Watercourse. Surface water mapping suggests that there may be some theoretical risk to the adjacent development, located east of the site (Redlands Lane), during significant rainfall events (1:1000yr) and a more pronounced risk downstream (north) along the alignment of the Ordinary Watercourse.

Indeed DCC hold records of property flooding that are thought to be associated with this watercourse. To this end, and in compliance with the recommendations of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the proposed development must be supported by a strategy of surface water management that is both appropriate and deliverable.

The current application does not appear to be supported by either a standalone Drainage Strategy or other documents that might include the necessary consideration of surface water management. Neither the supporting Design & Access Statement (ref: Taylor Wilkinson Ltd – TW.15/121 dated March 2017) or illustrative Site Plan (ref: Taylor Wilkinson Ltd – TW.15/121/1 dated Sept 2016) provide any insight into how surface water is to be managed.

Section 12 of the relevant application form indicates the discharge of surface water to a Main Sewer. However it is not clear whether any site investigation has been conducted before other more sustainable methods of managing surface water have been dismissed, or indeed whether a viable surface / combined sewer is aligned in proximity to the site. Such discharge to a surface or combined sewer is the least favoured method of managing surface water, and would need in-principle agreement from the relevant operator or utility to demonstrate that it is feasible, acceptable and will not create off site worsening. Screening of the site via freely available British Geological Society (BGS) data, suggests that the prevailing bedrock would range from Sandstone, Limestone to Mudstone, with no identifiable superficial layers. Therefore site specific investigation would be required to establish whether infiltration rates would support the (preferred) use of soakaways with which to manage surface water. On the basis of the limited information provided, we recommend that a (Holding) Objection be applied to this application, pending the supply & acceptance of further clarification, and outline of a deliverable scheme of surface water management.

We (DCC/LLFA) are not currently able to approve the proposed scheme or surface water management strategy for this development, in accordance with the Ministerial Statement ‘Sustainable Drainage System’ 2014, NPPF paragraph 103 and the revised Planning Policy Guidance. The applicant may wish to overcome our position via the submission of additional information and outline of a conceptual scheme of surface water management.

Accordingly we ask to be re-consulted in respect of any additional details supplied in relation to the management of surface water at this location. Our stated (Holding) Objection will be maintained until a viable and deliverable surface water management scheme has been agreed in-principle, and that it would be appropriate to recommend the attachment of specific conditions in respect of detailed design. Comments on amended plans- Further information submitted is sufficient for the holding objection to be removed:

Recommend approval subject to conditions (detailed surface water management scheme, and maintenance/management details conditions)

5.3 Wessex Water- No comments received

5.4 South West Water- I refer to the above application upon which we cannot recommend approval at this time based upon the proposed means of surface water drainage being a connection to the public sewer. Broadwindsor only benefits from a combined public sewer network and the discharge of surface water to such is against South West Water policy. A alternative surface water drainage strategy needs therefore to be provided and submitted for approval.

Comments on amended scheme- No comment (Case officer note- applicant is devising alternative surface water drainage strategy)

5.5 Natural England- Based upon the information provided, Natural England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites.

Protected landscapes The proposed development is for a site within or close to a nationally designated landscape namely Dorset AONB. Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained below. Your decision should be guided by paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives the highest status of protection for the ‘landscape and scenic beauty’ of AONBs and National Parks. For major development proposals paragraph 116 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape. Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies set out in your development plan, or appropriate saved policies. We also advise that you consult the relevant AONB Partnership or Conservation Board. Their knowledge of the site and its wider landscape setting, together with the aims and objectives of the AONB’s statutory management plan, will be a valuable contribution to the planning decision. Where available, a local Landscape Character Assessment can also be a helpful guide to the landscape’s sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development. The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

Protected species We have not assessed the application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application. If protected species or biodiversity interests are likely to be affected, or if the application exceeds 0.1 ha, then in line with the Dorset Planning Protocol Natural England recommends that this is achieved by requesting a Dorset County Council Natural Environment Team (DCC NET) approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP). Please note that provided the application is supported by a NET approved BMP then no further consultation with Natural England is required

As Standing Advice it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation. However, the Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer’s responsibility) or may be granted.

Local sites If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local site, e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application.

Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

Landscape enhancements This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest Impact Risk Zones The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires local planning authorities to consult Natural England on “Development in or likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest” (Schedule 4, w). Our SSSI Impact Risk Zones are a GIS dataset designed to be used during the planning application validation process to help local planning authorities decide when to consult Natural England on developments likely to affect a SSSI. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the data.gov.uk website We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Comments on amended scheme- Previous advice applies equally to this amendment.

5.6 Dorset Wildlife Trust - It seems unlikely that the proposed development will have any impacts on the nearby Site of Nature Conservation Interest (Our ref: ST 40/074 Burstock Grange).

The results of the preliminary ecological survey should be used to compile a full Biodiversity Mitigation Plan which should include all measures required to protect the species such as Dormice, bats and reptiles considered to be potentially supported on the site. It should also include mitigation measures required to offset the loss of natural habitat and suggested enhancement measures to ensure biodiversity gain, in order to comply with NPPF. The BMP should be sent to the Natural Environment Team at Dorset County Council for approval. Once a Certificate of Approval is provided by the NET team, Dorset Wildlife Trust will not require to be consulted again.

5.7 Historic England- On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.

5.8 DCC Mineral Planning Authority- Thank you for consulting the Mineral Planning Authority on the above application. Whereas a small area of the proposed development site extent lies within the Mineral Safeguarded Area (designated in the Minerals Strategy 2014), it is unlikely that this would compromise any future mineral extraction. For this reason, the Mineral Planning Authority does not object to this proposal. 5.9 WDDC Environmental Health Officer- Public Health’s records indicate that the proposed development lies within 50m of an area of Unknown Filled Ground. This area has been identified as a Low risk site through the Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy.

Please apply the following – Unexpected Contamination Condition. In the event that previously unidentified contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, this must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment, conducted in accordance with recognised good practice, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and approval. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

5.10 WDDC Housing Enabling Team-

1. Housing need 1.1 The West Dorset District Council’s Housing Register currently has 1500 households registered as being in affordable housing need. To address this need the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA) suggests that in the region of 130 new affordable dwellings will need to be developed each year.

1.2 There are 12 households on the West Dorset Housing Register who have declared a local connection to Broadwindsor. The highest levels of demand are for one and two bedroom properties.

1.3 The above information is considered to demonstrate a significant level of housing need in the area.

2. Planning Policy

Relevant Policies West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance

2.1 This is an application for up to 32 homes. 2.2 The application makes it clear that the development will provide 35% affordable housing. The highest level of need is for one and two bedroom homes for rent. However it is also important that the affordable homes provided should be proportionate to the scale and mix of the market housing to create a tenure blind development.

3. Summary 3.1 There is a defined local need for affordable housing in Broadwindsor and this development could help to meet this.

Comments on amended scheme- We support affordable housing being provided on this site. I appreciate that we are now looking at smaller numbers on site with 7/ 8 units being provided.

There is a housing need in the Parish. There are currently 23 applications on the Housing Register with a connection to the Parish, there are 1625 applications on the West Dorset Register in total. There is demand for all sizes of homes so a mix of unit types would be beneficial in meeting the long term need in the village.

There is a Community Land Trust active in the Parish who are looking at developing 15 affordable homes in Drimpton but no planning application has yet been submitted.

5.11 WDDC Tree Officer- The proposed scheme would be considered to have a negative impact in that there would be a substantial loss of a mature hedgerow along Bridport Road. Plots 15 and 16 as shown have a relationship to existing trees that would be subject to a significant amount of shading. It may be worth considering the orientation/layout of these dwellings to mitigate the effect. Plot 20 is too close to boundary and a wider gap should be considered. Plot 36-32 on the western area of the development are exposed as no boundary treatment is showing as proposed. However, there are likely to be mature trees retained which is welcome. There is a pedestrian access shown to the south that would link up with the existing rights of way which would be positive for the site. Finally, the site layout shows there is sufficient space for the planting of substantial new species. We would also suggest that the boundary treatment along Bridport Road be modified to reflect the existing planting on the opposite side of the road.

If you were minded to approve we would recommend a tree/landscaping condition in order to address the exposed areas to the west.

5.12 WDDC Senior Landscape Architect- (Original comments) As set out in the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) the site lies within the Axe Valley Hills landscape character area. The description of the site’s character within this context is appropriate with the site area being described as:

“The Landscape Character Assessment highlights that “Similar to other areas within the west of the AONB, the Axe Valley Hills are characterised by a series of linear hills running north to south, formed from underlying greensand ridges. These are particularly dominant where the heathy summits form the backdrop to the Marshwood Vale including Pilsdon Pen, Lewesdon Hill and Waddon Hill forts. There are a series of small valleys with streams, including the Synderford and Temple Brook, draining into the Axe Valley further north. An intimate and tranquil quality confined by the surrounding steep hills”.

The Site has been evaluated through the SHLAA process and was identified as a ‘developable site’. It comprises the eastern sectors of two small linear fields that are largely delineated by established field hedges/linear copses. A multi-stemmed ash tree exists within the dividing hedgeline. The development proposal occupies the most elevated portion of the site (above the 175m contour line). The site is visually influenced by existing residential development to the north-west (Fullers) and the modern Redlands estate to the north-east. The Site occupies an important ‘gateway’ location to the village when approaching from the south-east (Bridport Road). As the LVIA states the most prominent views of the site are those afforded by the public footpaths that run adjacent to the Site’s southern boundary and up towards Lewesdon Hill to the south. The site is visible in the foreground with the village and surrounding hills to the north forming the backdrop within the view (with ref. Viewpoint 1 of the LVIA).

An ‘illustrative’ site plan is submitted with a proposal for up to 32 dwellings. The associated Design and Access Statement states that the “dwellings would be two storeys high and traditionally designed to reflect and respect the character and appearance of the existing housing, particularly that of the housing along Redlands Lane”. It also states that the“development is to reflect the parameters exhibited by the modern housing in Redlands Lane….”. In respect of the proposed numbers of units on the site, the figure given within the SHLAA is indicative. Based on the indicative Layout the proposed density of “up to 32 dwellings” would be considered to be an over development of the site and is not representative of the existing residential developments of Fullers or Redlands Lane. The indicative layout would not allow the provision of a robust landscaping scheme to the south-west boundary or for the retention/enhancement of the existing 4m wide hedge along the south-eastern boundary.

Regarding impacts upon the AONB, the Dorset AONB Team have been consulted and have made the following observations:

"I am concerned that the scale and density of the proposal would not demonstrate adequate regard to the site’s countryside setting. Overall, the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site and result in an adverse visual impact affecting receptors of the footpaths between Broadwindsor and Lewesdon Hill.

The site location is at the southern periphery of the settlement of Broadwindsor, at its interface with the wider countryside, particularly to the south and west, where there is an immediate transition to open undeveloped countryside. Although the site is adjacent to estate style development to the north and east and is broadly read within the context of development when viewed from elevated land to the south, the elevated nature of the eastern extent of the site, its westward sloping landform and its present contribution to the landscape setting of Broadwindsor increase its sensitivity, thereby reducing its capacity to accommodate the proposed development. In order to provide a more detailed image of the site and its context from the south I have undertaken a high resolution panoramic photograph from footpath W23/12 at OS co-ordinates 343722 101691: http://gigapan.com/gigapans/198560. In my opinion this image represents a location from which the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the AONB would be particularly pronounced. The applicant makes reference to the appearance of housing at Redlands Lane as a template for this proposal. However, my calculations approximate that a similar area within the Redlands development would typically accommodate fewer than 20 dwellings. As a result I do not consider that the approval of this outline application would lead to a detailed design that would be comparable in appearance and effect to the design template that is cited. Although there may be aspects of the detailed design of the Redlands development that could be replicated within any housing development in this site area, its increased visibility and sensitivity would suggest that a lower density than the Redlands scheme would be advisable. The Dorset AONB has a suite of Special Qualities (SQs) that make it a unique and outstanding place, underpinning its designation as a nationally important landscape. These are the physical, perceptual and aesthetic aspects of the landscape that we need to conserve and enhance for the future and they should be considered in decisions affecting the AONB. I consider that this application has the potential to adversely affect the undeveloped rural character and uninterrupted panoramic views SQs of the AONB.

The Dorset AONB Management Plan 2014-19 contains a range of objectives and policies that aim to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Area. The Plan is a material consideration in the planning process and provides a framework to help guide local authorities in fulfilling their statutory duty, informing the development of local planning policy and influencing development control decisions. Considering the foreseeable effect of this application in relation to this Plan, the proposal conflicts with the following objectives and policies:

1. Objective L1: Conserve and enhance the AONB and the character and quality of its distinctive landscapes and associated features:

- L1c: Conserve and enhance the Special Qualities of the AONB such as tranquility and remoteness, wildness and dark skies

2. Objective L2: Conserve and enhance the AONB by removing, avoiding and reducing intrusive and degrading features:

- L2a: Avoid and reduce the cumulative impacts of change that erodes landscape character and quality

- L2c: Remove, avoid and reduce intrusive and degrading features to restore and enhance landscape character and quality

3. Objective PH1: Support sustainable development that conserves and enhances the Special Qualities of the AONB:

- PH1a: Ensure that any necessary development affecting the AONB is sensitively sited and designed and conserves and enhances local character

- PH1g: Conserve and enhance the AONB’s undeveloped rural character, panoramic views, tranquility, remoteness and wildness

4. Objective PH2: Impacts of development and land use damaging to the AONB’s Special Qualities are avoided and reduced: - PH2b: Protect the quality of uninterrupted panoramic views into, within and out of the AONB".

WDDC Senior Landscape Architects summary -

I would concur with the above observations of the AONB Team – particularly in respect of the issue of ‘density’. Whilst the principle of development within this site would be acceptable – there is likely to be sufficient reason for refusal on landscape grounds. The proposal, in its current form, would fail the explicit policy tests of ENV1, ENV10 and ENV12. In line with NPPF, such considerations of impacts upon the AONB landscape should be given great weight in the planning balance. If the applicant were willing to put forward a reduced number of units for the site (in line with the adjacent residential developments) we would be happy to work with them to work up a more suitable and sympathetic scheme that will contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness.

Comments of AONB Landscape Officer on amended plans-

Although there has been some reduction in the number of units, it appears that housing density would be above that at Redlands Lane and Fullers. I have estimated the density of those areas and it appears that these are around 20 dph, whereas this application suggests a density of approx. 24-25 dph. Looking at the plans, the design includes some notable extents of terraced housing, particularly in the central area, and there is limited space within the site that would allow for planting. These factors, in addition to the fact that the site slopes toward receptors in the wider countryside (i.e. toward Lewesdon Hill), lead me to conclude that the proposal would have a greater impact than the adjacent areas of housing that are of lower density. I would therefore recommend that the density of the housing should be further reduced and that this should lead to a reduction in the use of terraced housing and the introduction of additional tree planting within the site.

Comments of WDDC Landscape Architect on amended plans- · I share the AONB Landscape Officer's concern that the proposed density is still greater than the existing development to the NE of the Site (Redlands) and would advise that the layout be further revised accordingly. · I also share his concern over the amount of ‘terraced development’. In elevated views from public rights of ways to the N of Lewesdon Hill the existing Redlands development allows a good degree of visual permeability between the dwellings – where landscaping breaks up the massing and provides a visual link to established tree planting beyond (to the N). I would advise that the scheme be further revised to reduce the ‘terraced’ sections as these would be at variance with the adjacent existing residential development and would have a greater impact from the area flanking Lewesdon Hill. · The Scheme should seek to provide peripheral and integral tree planting – of both a domestic and a forestry tree scale in order to respond to the wider landscape setting. A Landscape Strategy Drawing should, ideally, be designed in order to demonstrate the principles behind the integration of any new tree/shrub planting.

6. Other representations 6.1 52 letters of objection/comment and 1 of support have been received. The main planning-related points include-

-Proposed access would be dangerous. -A proposed vehicular access to a Bridport Rd dwelling here was refused-so why allow this now? -Village lacks footpaths so this would exacerbate that danger. -Harmful impact on wildlife and its habitats-range of wide flora and fauna -Loss of countryside views. -Detrimental to setting and views from the valued Lewesdon Hill, which contains an Iron Age hill fort. -Detrimental to the setting and views from Pilsdon Pen. -Will overload existing village infrastructure. -Big increase in cars will cause congestion and increase highway safety dangers. -Will exacerbate existing sewerage problems. -Only limited bus service available. -Will overload doctors surgeries. -Village school at capacity. -Highway safety dangers from new access use, and narrow, single carriageway stretches of road. -20 mph speed limit is exceeded already. -Redlands Lane will be used as a "rat run" between Bridport and Beaminster Roads; already a lot of cars parked there with congestion and would lead to highway safety dangers. -Elevated site- development will dominate existing properties around it. -Will exacerbate traffic congestion in village. -Worsen flooding on road. -Noise and disturbance from the construction phase traffic. -Scheme not in line with early responses to the Neighbourhood Plan consultation. -Will affordable housing actually be delivered? -Broadwindsor Community Land Trust seeks to provide 15 affordable dwellings - consequently these dwellings not required. -Not possible to protect hedge, keep road width and create pavement wide enough. -Inadequate visibility from new access to B3162. -60 car spaces needed but not shown -Loss of privacy and countryside view to existing houses opposite the proposed houses. -New residents will not necessarily use the village community facilities, and therefore not help sustain them. -Increased traffic will worsen problem of narrow pavements in village. -Worsen on-street parking. -Would not allow pedestrian link to public footpath to south owned by Folly Cottage. -Harmful impact of development on frontage hedgerow. -Any addressing of residential amenity issue by lowering of land will harm wildlife and hedge. -Insufficient infrastructure to service scale of development. -Additional traffic increases risk to pedestrians and cyclists including from larger vehicles. -Loss of residential amenity from overlooking of existing dwellings. -Light pollution. -Should be single storey only. -Applicants landscape appraisal is misleading. -Exacerbate surface water drainage issue for adjacent development in Fullers. -Fear local housing need homes will become second homes. -If any permission is given, should be carefully and tightly conditioned. -Occupiers would have to commute to employment elsewhere. -No gas in village so more expensive means of energy would have to be used. -Erode tranquillity of public rights of way and countryside. -Loss of countryside is too high a price to pay. -Better to use empty properties elsewhere in country first rather than new build. -Should use brown field sites instead. -Should limit to just 5 houses in village per annum. -Premature application- as Neighbourhood Plan not in place. -Bridport Road is generally dangerous and narrow- will increase highway dangers. -Houses will be too expensive for first time buyers. -Undesirable precedent for further development. -Pollution of Little Axe headstream- harm water quality and aquatic life. -Loss of good agricultural land. -Cause flooding elsewhere in village. -Foul sewer overload. -Poor bus service. -No doctors surgery in village. -Conflicts with small scale development in Broadwindsor Group Parish Plan 2012. -Traffic will back-up past dangerous bend by Folly Cottage. -Last 17 years-just 5 new houses and 3 small barn conversions-limit development. -Difficult for service/emergency vehicles to negotiate development site due to likely on-street parking. - Overdevelopment -too great an increase in population. -Should not sacrifice this valued landscape to meet 5 year housing land supply-housing at Clipper Teas and at Broadwindsor Craft Centre will meet target so no need for more. -Lack of pavements in village centre increases dangers from this development -potential flooding of properties downsteam. -Scope for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to 2031 to deliver widespread housing in the District, so not necessary here. -Dorset Wildlife Trust should comment on this scheme . -Any highway conditions should be complied with.

1 letter of support has been received on the following -

-Additional housing is needed and will help sustain community facilities.

Comments on amended plans- 22 letters of objection/comment and 1 letter of support. The main planning-related points include-

-Objections still stand despite amendments to scheme. -Note that despite vehicular access to the B3162 refused in 1997, this application would overrule that decision which stated no new vehicular access could be made due to highway safety and visual impact- not changed Winslore House-1/W/97/000519. -Concern that major changes will occur later as only access being considered. -Protect AONB for future generations. This is not the place for housing. -Transport and parking problems could be worsened by recent loss of bus service. -Plans still do not help lack of low cost hosing in Broadwindsor. -Loss of public transport system in village. -Houses will just be for car driving affluent holiday home owners. -Still too many dwellings - should be below 10. -Harm to landscape and community. -Should renovate old properties in area- not build a-new. -Ample other new developments in pipeline will more than meet local needs. -The school remains over-subscribed. -Major issues with access and drainage remain. -Proposed entrance would be a highway danger; too close to road for pedestrians. -Greatest traffic volume would come from Beaminster/Bridport Roads into the village/craft centre, and to avoid the existing junction at the Cross Keys will enter Redlands Lane for convenience making it a dangerous rat-run through a residential road with a number of parked cars reducing the width. -No footpaths for pedestrian safety. -Significant harmful impact on wildlife/on bank and in fields. -Visual harm to setting of the National Trust property Leweston Hill and sight line of Pilsdon Pen and adjacent area; harmful impact on AONB and Wessex Ridgeway Landscape. -Village infrastructure can't cope. -Significant increase in cars. -The Community Land Trust is seeking development of a site within the Parish to provide 15 affordable houses to meet local policy. -Insufficient infrastructure; the pub has closed and bus service lost. - Won't tackle local housing issues. -No reduction to roof heights fronting B3162;units 1,2,3 and 8,9 and 10 now face B3162 resulting in loss of privacy to houses opposite and loss of light for numbers 1,3 and 5 Redlands Lane, and loss of visual amenity for all. -Units appear closer to road than previously. -Existing native hedgerow not preserved - a lot lost from frontage. -Full application should be made so can see what actually proposed. -Undesirable precedent. -Existing surface water drainage problems on B3162 will be exacerbated. -Not consulted residents on village needs. -Not in line with Neighbourhood Plan for affordable housing. -Houses look too large and will dominate skyline. -Adjacent properties will lose privacy and views. -No buses now so taxis needed. -Inadequate car parking-will therefore park in nearby roads - restrict access for emergency vehicles. -Query if a fire hydrant be provided. -To improve residential amenity would need to lower the site - thereby impacting on wildlife. -Query who bears costs of drainage tank system maintenance. -Small number of single storey dwellings better. -Proposed drainage schemer will increase flood risk at stream junction in the area 75m south of Toll House and pinch point near there. -Using soakaway from properties north of 2 and 4 Fullers and at northern end of development would also cause major issues- will increase flood risk in this already troubled area. -Increase pressure on sewage system. -Outreach post office provided by Bridport been terminated and now provided by a Somerset office - ie fragile infrastructure- inadequate to support the development. -Reduced housing numbers now reduces the affordable housing. -Future of pub and bus uncertain.

1 letter of support received. The main planning-related points include-

-Net economic benefit. -Ensure long term sustainability of village- maintaining pub, school, shop, church, allotments and bus service. -Opportunity to satisfy affordable housing need (as in Parish and Neighbourhood Plan).

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

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

8. Relevant Planning History - None

9. The Development Plan

The West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 ENV1 Landscape,seascape and sites of geological interest ENV2 Wildlife and habitats ENV4 Heritage assets ENV5 Flood risk ENV9 Pollution and contaminated land ENV10 Landscape and townscape setting ENV11 The pattern of streets and spaces ENV12 Design and positioning of buildings ENV15 Efficient and appropriate use of land ENV16 Amenity SUS1 The level of economic and housing growth SUS2 Distribution of development HOUS1 Affordable housing HOUS3 Open market housing mix COM1 Making sure new development makes suitable provision for community infrastructure COM4 New or improved local recreational facilities COM7 Creating a safe and efficient transport network COM9 Parking standards in new development COM10 The provision of utilities service infrastructure

10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines 2009 10.2 Landscape Character Areas 2009 10.3 Dorset AONB Management Plan 2014-19

11. Supplementary planning guidance - N/A 12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

In terms of decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless: · any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; · or where specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. · The NPPF also states that:

· Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground. (Para. 186) · Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work pro actively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. (Para. 187)

Relevant sections of the NPPF- Part 1.Building a strong competitive economy Part 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Part 7 Requiring good design Part 8 Promoting healthy communities Part 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Part 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

12.2 Conservation Area Appraisals - N/A

13. Planning issues 13.1 Principle of development Broadwindsor is a settlement with a defined development boundary (DDB) in the adopted Local Plan. The spatial strategy in the local Plan is set out in policy SUS2. This has a three-tiered approach, with the main towns of Weymouth and Dorchester as the highest priority locations for new development and elsewhere the market/coastal towns, Portland and Crossways being a focus for future development at the second tier in the hierarchy. At the third tier, the policy states; “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. Settlements with no defined development boundary may also have some growth to meet their local needs.” 13.2 Policy SUS2 also advises that development outside of Defined Development Boundaries will be “strictly controlled” and limited to the exceptions listed in bullet point iii) of the policy. This includes affordable housing, but not open market housing. Therefore the provision of open market housing on the site is contrary to SUS2 as it lies outside of the DDB for Broadwindsor.

13.3 However, members will be aware that currently the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply (HLS), its most recent monitoring putting the figure at 4.94 years. Whilst this is close to the required 5-year level and an improvement on the assessment of an Inspector in relation to an appeal inquiry for a site in Yetminster in February of this year - which set the figure at 4.63 years – it is the Councils’ position that it remains below the level required by Government guidance in the NPPF. In such a situation, paragraph 49 of the NPPF advises that the relevant Local Plan policies for the supply of housing are out-of-date. Policies in the Local Plan which would be out-of-date as a result of the lack of a housing land supply would include Policy SUS2. Therefore this policy does not enjoy the full statutory weight which the policies in the LP unaffected by para. 49 continue to enjoy.

13.4 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. It advises that where policies are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that the development should be restricted. In the absence of an adequate HLS, the Council has to apply this “tilted balance” as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF to housing proposals.

13.5 The application of paragraph 14 of the NPPF has resulted in a number of court cases, eventually resulting in the Supreme Court ruling of Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes & SSCLG (2016). This confirms that where a Council does not have a 5-year supply, Paragraph 49 acts as a trigger for applying the tilted balance in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In applying the tilted balance, any out-of-date of policies are not simply disregarded. So the Council can continue to have regard to its spatial strategy, but it does not carry its full statutory weight. The weight to be given to the affected policies is a matter for planning judgement and will depend on the extent to which relevant policies fall short of providing for the five-year supply of housing land, the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it, or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy – such as the protection of a "green wedge" or of a gap between settlements.

13.6 In particular, the decision-maker would need to have regard to whether continuing to apply environmental and amenity policies with their “full rigour” would frustrate the primary objective of the NPPF to deliver sustainable development. The Council needs to take a wider view of the development plan policies and should be disposed to grant permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

13.7 As the Council’s HLS has improved over the last year and some of the key allocations in the Local Plan have now reached the stage of resolutions to approve subject to completion of legal agreements, Members may consider that greater weight should be attached to SUS2 and in particular development outside the DDBs in the Plan. However, officers would caution against this at this stage. In particular, the Councils’ monitoring reveals it has not hit its current annual house-building target of 775 dwellings per annum since before the recession. Whilst last year’s monitoring showed considerable improvement in this figure, this is against very low levels of completions in previous years. Critically, the figure remains below 775 and therefore this ‘debt’ of housing completions continues to be added to the Council’s HLS.

13.8 The Council remains a ‘20% authority’ for the purposes of paragraph 47 of the NPPF as result. It is also likely to stay being regarded as having a record of persistent under delivery of housing for the near future whilst housing numbers remain below the annual target. Consequently the Council is likely to continue to need to factor in a 20% buffer to the housing land supply figure for a number of years to come.

13.9 Consequently, officers advise that in the circumstances it will still be necessary for the Local Planning Authority to continue to look to opportunities to bolster the HLS in the short-term. The likely fragility of the Councils’ HLS in the LP was foreseen by the Local Plan Inspector who stated; The overall number of dwellings derived from the various sources of supply is unlikely, however, to be sufficient to meet housing targets to the end of the plan period making it necessary for the Councils to identify further land.”

13.10 As a consequence of this tenuous position, the LP Inspector advised; It is therefore important that the Councils closely monitor the delivery of new dwellings and take advantage of every reasonable opportunity to improve their short term supply position as well as the overall amount of housing for the plan period.” [my emphasis] (para.106). Whilst the Council has already embarked on the process of reviewing the LP, this is at an early stage and would not carry particular weight in the determination of this application.

13.11 Consequently, there remains a clear need in your officer’s opinion not to continue to apply ‘full rigour’ to Policy SUS2 and to look for opportunities to bolster the housing supply where these are consistent with the remaining policies in the Local Plan, in particular Policy INT1 which promotes sustainable development. In this regard the site adjoins a settlement with a DBB in the Local Plan. Therefore the Local Plan regards Broadwindsor as a sustainable location for further development where this takes place in rural areas, subject to this being at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement as advised in Policy SUS2.

13.12 In these circumstances, it is considered that the Council should regard the site as a sustainable location for further development. In addition, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Update July 2014 reviewed this site (in fact looking at a larger area including the land further west and up to the north - alongside Fullers western flank). That assessment concluded that " development be limited to the south-eastern portion" which is around the 175m contour. This description broadly equates to land within the application site.

13.13 Principle of development - conclusion: The assessment of the merits of the scheme against the remaining policies in the LP is set out below. However, in respect of whether the development of the site should be resisted in principle, where the Council’s HLS remains below 5 years, full statutory weight cannot be applied to Policy SUS2. As the Council therefore needs to consider additional housing sites not originally envisaged for development by the adopted Local Plan, preference should be given to the most sustainable locations.

13.14 It is pertinent to consider the extent to which this settlement provides facilities and services consistent with the principles of sustainability. It is a relatively large village with a population of about 1,319 (2011). It has a primary school, which would be within about 10 minutes walk from the application site. There is also Broadwindsor Community Stores; a convenience store which stocks a range of goods including frozen/fridge based foods, cards, stationery and papers. It also has a "Pay-point" facility. There is the Broadwindsor Craft and Design Centre ; this includes craft/artists studios and retails a range of gifts and other items. This facility also has a restaurant. The village also has a pub; the White Lion Inn. Whilst this has seen periods of closure, it is currently open and trading. The village also has a church. There is also a playing field located on the east side of the settlement.

13.15 Regarding public transport there was until recently a No 40 bus providing a service by Damory Buses. Currently there is a limited service to Yeovil. A subsidised reduced frequency bus service is currently being provided by DCC which will continue until July when this will be reviewed. The DCC are continuing to work with west Dorset communities to explore transport solutions. It is understood the following are currently in place: Axe Valley and West Dorset Ring and Ride (one day per week to various destinations on a rota) ; Plus Bus (Wednesday trip to Dorchester) and Beaminster County Cars (volunteer car scheme for medical appointments, etc.)

13.16 The extent of public transport clearly has its limitations here. Nevertheless, the village does possess a good basic range of facilities - with facilities such as the school and shop helping to reduce the need for the use of private cars. It is of course plausible that the addition of the 22 dwellings proposed here could help the viability of local businesses and facilities.

13.17 Scale of development- Part of the criteria in Policy SUS2 is that where development takes place in the settlements in the rural "3rd tier" of the spatial strategy, this will "take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement ". In the context of Community Needs and Infrastructure within the Local Plan Broadwindsor is regarded as a "large village" (500+ population). Broadwindsor itself has population of 1,319 (2014 Mid Year Estimate -Office for National Statistics-ONS). Broadwindsor (with Seaborough) has 613 households (ONS). 13.18 This application proposes 22 dwellings (22 households) and is likely to result in a population increase of approximately 53 persons.

13.19 The Local Plan does not set any figure for the level of growth at the 3rd tier of the spatial strategy, nor advise as to whether a particular percentage level of growth represents the “appropriate scale” of growth. There is therefore a need to make this assessment on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind the settlement concerned. In this respect, if additional sites are to be considered in the rural areas, then it would be preferable to direct these to the larger villages with potentially greater capacity to accept larger developments by virtue of their range of existing facilities and services. A Neighbourhood Plan for Broadwindsor is currently in preparation and at draft stage. In these circumstances it is too early in the process for weight to be attached to it.

13.20 Scale of development - conclusion- A number of objections have been received from the Parish Council and local people regarding the scale of development arguing that this development is excessive. Whilst Broadwindsor is not the largest of villages, nor is it the smallest; with a population of about 1,300 an increase of 22 houses (about 53 persons) is not considered excessive. It does have a good basic range of key rural facilities. The presence of a primary school is a notable bonus - such that younger local children do not need to be driven to other settlements for schooling, thereby helping to reduce private car trips. Regarding public transport, there is currently a bus service. However, these are of limited frequency as mentioned above.

13.21 Affordable Housing- Planning policy allows for the provision of affordable housing outside the defined development boundary. This scheme offers 35% of the proposed units to be affordable housing. The Housing Enabling Team Leader is supportive of this scheme due to the level of local housing need. It would provide 7 affordable homes on-site and a financial contribution for remaining fraction of the 35% total. These affordable housing provisions would be specified in a section 106 agreement. (It is known that a scheme for up to 15 affordable dwellings in Drimpton is in preparation to be submitted later in the year. However, the Housing Enabling Officer remains supportive of this application and its prospect of 7 units in a sustainable location).

13.22 Visual issues- Again this is an issue which has prompted much objection , including concerns based on loss of the open land in the AONB and the relationshipof the site to the ancient hill fort of Lewesdon Hill to the south-west. The site lies within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within the Axe Valley Hills Landscape Character Area in the Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Document. The part of the site closest to the B road rises by about 3m from the northern boundary to the southern boundary near "Leweston View". Moving westwards the site progressively starts to slope away slightly towards the watercourse. The top of the bank within the site and opposite 3 Redlands Lane is about 1.2m higher than the pathway fronting No 3. A public footpath (one of several in the locality) runs close to the southern edge of the site before it ascends Leweston Hill to the south-west. Another public footpath also runs to the west of the site and takes a route back into the village. The site is about 770m from the Wessex Ridgeway public footpath on Lewesdon Hill. It is also about 2,700m from the Monarchs Way footpath on Pilsdon Pen. Waddon Hillfort lies away to the south-east.

13.23 Regarding comments on the original 32 dwelling scheme, the WDDC Landscape Officer notes that the development occupies the more elevated portion of the SHLAA site, and that it is visually influenced by existing residential development to the north-west (Fullers) and the more modern Redlands development to the east. The AONB Landscape Officer has also been consulted. He is concerned by the scale and density of the scheme and that it would not demonstrate adequate regard to the sites countryside setting, and that it would constitute overdevelopment of the site and have an adverse visual impact on views from footpaths between Broadwindsor and Lewesdon Hill. He notes regarding the 32 unit scheme that "the elevated nature of the eastern extent of the site, its westward sloping landform and its present contribution to the landscape setting of Broadwindsor increase its sensitivity" He suggests a density lower than the Redlands scheme would be advisable. The WDDC landscape officer agrees with the AONB Landscape Officer - particularly regarding density.

13.24 The applicant has responded to local and landscape officer concerns by reducing the scale of the scheme from 32 to 22 dwellings. The submitted layout is purely illustrative, but shows broadly how the site might be developed, with the principle of dwellings fronting or relatively close to the east boundary and with development in depth showing dwellings largely fronting the estate road, with a range of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses with a mix of on-plot and courtyard parking. The AONB Landscape Officer has commented as follows: Although there has been some reduction in the number of units, it appears that housing density would be above that at Redlands Lane and Fullers. I have estimated the density of those areas and it appears that these are around 20 density per hectare (dph), whereas this application suggests a density of approx. 24-25 dph. Looking at the plans, the design includes some notable extents of terraced housing, particularly in the central area, and there is limited space within the site that would allow for planting. These factors, in addition to the fact that the site slopes toward receptors in the wider countryside (i.e. toward Lewesdon Hill), lead me to conclude that the proposal would have a greater impact than the adjacent areas of housing that are of lower density. I would therefore recommend that the density of the housing should be further reduced and that this should lead to a reduction in the use of terraced housing and the introduction of additional tree planting within the site.

The WDDC Landscape Architect has commented on the amended plans as follows: · I share AONB Landscape Officer concern that the proposed density is still greater than the existing development to the NE of the Site (Redlands) and would advise that the layout be further revised accordingly. · I also share his concern over the amount of ‘terraced development’. In elevated views from public rights of ways to the N of Lewesdon Hill the existing Redlands development allows a good degree of visual permeability between the dwellings – where landscaping breaks up the massing and provides a visual link to established tree planting beyond (to the N). I would advise that the scheme be further revised to reduce the ‘terraced’ sections as these would be at variance with the adjacent existing residential development and would have a greater impact from the area flanking Lewesdon Hill. · The Scheme should seek to provide peripheral and integral tree planting – of both a domestic and a forestry tree scale in order to respond to the wider landscape setting. A Landscape Strategy Drawing should, ideally, be designed in order to demonstrate the principles behind the integration of any new tree/shrub planting.

The two Landscape Officers wish to see a further reduction in density from the c24 -25 per hectare. However, the case officer feels that the reduction in numbers is a significant one, and that it does not need to be precisely the same as the Redlands development to the east. It should also be remembered that the Redlands scheme was built in the 1990's and has gardens of quite marked variation in size in any event. It should also be remembered that the layout provided is illustrative only, and that a revised layout (which would form a reserved matters submission) could help mitigate the scheme. Whilst the number of dwellings was reduced from 32 to 22 the site was not reduced in area - thus providing scope to provide enhanced landscaping towards the southern and western boundaries (to help address the relationship with views from Lewesdon Hill). The landscape officers suggest less terraced housing. A reserved matters scheme need not necessarily contain the amount of terraced housing as this illustrative scheme suggests. It should be recognised however that some terraced housing would be reasonable, given that this is a traditional form of development and is of course notably present in Redlands Lane and opposite the site frontage. This form of development is a characteristic and appropriate dwelling form in this area (as Redlands Lane opposite demonstrates). With the exception of the eastern B road frontage the existing hedgerow boundaries (including the "internal" east-west hedge) can be largely retained. There would also be a new native species hedgerow established on the western site boundary. These measures - together with additional planting - would help assimilate the development into the landscape.

13.25 Heritage Assets- The site lies about 770m from the higher part of Lewesdon Hill. As this is an ancient monument and the development could have an effect on its setting, the views of Historic England were sought. They did not wish to offer any comments on the scheme. This suggests they are satisfied with the basic relationship and distance of the scheme from the ancient monument.

13.26 Public open space- The illustrative layout does not indicate specific public open space, although the scheme is likely to provide a related element of this given the need for landscaping and drainage measures. However, it should be noted that there are existing areas in the village for recreation which include the equipped play area adjacent to the village hall -Bernards Place . There is also an extant planning permission at the school site for a multi-use games area (MUGA) to be provided. Hursey Common is available and there is also a cricket ground in the village. One element this scheme would also contribute is an improved pedestrian link into the village to reach such facilities. (This will be expanded on in the "highways" section below ).

13.27 Foul drainage- The applicant has indicated the scheme would be connected to the main sewer; the existing system which runs across a field in the applicants ownership lies to the north-west of the site.

13.28 Surface water drainage- The site lies within flood zone 1, which equates to low flood risk. However, it is important that an appropriate surface water management strategy is devised for the site. An initial holding objection from the DCC Flood Risk Management Team has led to the submission of further details and a strategy: information on levels, gradients and over-sized pipework and an attenuation swale feature has been provided. The site would be drained to a watercourse to the west (the applicant owns the land over which this would be routed).

13.29 Residential amenity- The site is bounded by housing at "Fullers" to the north, and by houses fronting the Bridport Road/Redlands to the east. The dwellings at Fullers have relatively long back gardens. Those on the Bridport Road face the site but are set back behind a verge and are elevated. These are about 18m minimum from the nearest (illustrative) proposed dwelling. It is considered, having regard to the distances (20m or more) of back gardens in Fullers, and the set-back positions of the Bridport Road houses, that in residential amenity terms there is ample scope to position and align proposed dwellings such that no unacceptable overlooking would occur on a reserved matters application.

13.30 Ecological considerations- The application was supported by a Phase 1 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Bat Emergence Survey. The applicant has also provided a bio-diversity plan commensurate with this outline application. This provides a basis for understanding the potential flora and fauna present. As an outline application with no commitment to the layout and detailed design apart from the access, it will be necessary to condition any permission to ensure a further full bio-diversity mitigation plan which includes assessment of species such as dormouse, bats and reptile provisions is submitted.

13.31 Highway-related considerations- A number of letters have been received referring to traffic generation and highway safety issues. The DCC Highway Authority have been consulted to help assess this scheme. Apart from the number of dwellings the only other matter fixed by this outline application is the new access: The scheme proposes a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the B3162 Bridport Road. This road is about 5m wide and it forms the southern entry to the village, running down hill as it approaches the village. The speed limit of the section passing the site is 20 mph. The site has a c3m high frontage bank to the road. Consequently, the access rises as it enters the site. The engineering works to form the access and the visibility splays will necessitate marked loss of hedgerows on this frontage.

13.32 There is currently no footway from the junction of the Redlands road down to Fullers. This means that pedestrians have to walk either in the road, or on the uneven grass verge in order to reach the village centre. The scheme now proposed includes a new footway which would provide a safer and convenient means to reach the existing footways and village centre. A section would be added to the Redlands Lane junction to provide a crossing point to new sections of footpath running down the west side of the road to reach the existing footway at Fullers. Furthermore, traffic calming measures are also included as part of the works associated with this application. These include a narrowing of the road section just south of Fullers on the B3162 to 3m width to establish a vehicle priority restriction. Additional works at Redlands Lane and in the vicinity of Fullers would improve the footway links and provide tactile paving drop kerbs, including at Orchard Mead. This element in particular is consistent with the public sector equalities duty (PSED) ; the provision of the new, safer, more convenient footway linkage would be of particular benefit to the elderly/less able and those persons with push chairs or similar . 13.33 Highways- conclusion- The highways- related provisions have been developed in liaison with the DCC Highway Authority - who regard the scheme as acceptable subject to conditions which would address the access crossing, footway provision, visibility splays, traffic calming and a construction traffic management plan. It is considered that the highway provisions are acceptable, and that the addition of a connecting footway in this location between Redlands Lane and Fullers would provide a significant benefit to pedestrian safety.

13.34 Local Financial Considerations Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does have local finance considerations .

Community Infrastructure Levy The adopted charging schedule only applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set a £0 per square metre CIL rate.

The development proposal is CIL liable.

A levy is not raised at this stage because the proposal is for an outline planning permission and full details are unknown.

The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sqm. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development in relation to the reserved matters application.

13.35 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.

14. Summary 14.1 Broadwindsor is a significantly sized village with a defined development boundary. Whilst its public transport services are relatively limited, it nevertheless has a good basic range of facilities and services, including a primary school. As such, it is a relatively sustainable location for new development. Whilst the proposal is outside of the defined development boundary it is immediately adjacent to it. The site would extend development in the AONB but it is a site which is large enough to accommodate appropriate landscaping - especially to the south/west boundaries to help mitigate the effect on the AONB and the relationship with views from public viewpoints such as the public footpath ascending Lewesdon Hill. In these circumstances, influenced by the shortfall in housing land supply and in accordance with the NPPF we should be "disposed to grant planning permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

Furthermore, the Local Plan Inspector advised we should take "every reasonable opportunity" to increase the short-term housing supply position.

In summary, the planning benefits of this scheme can be summarised as: additional housing towards housing delivery targets; 7 affordable dwellings to help meet affordable housing need; housing can help contribute towards helping to sustain local shops and facilities, and the provision of a safe and convenient pedestrian footway into the village.

15. Recommendation 15.1 Delegate authority to approve to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure : - 35% of the units as affordable housing, -provision and maintenance/management of the surface water drainage space/landscaping areas.

And conditions- i. Plans list

ii. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the Reserved Matters) shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.

REASON: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site

iii. Application for approval of any "reserved matter" must be made not later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date of this permission.

REASON:This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

iv. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of the 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)

v No development must commence until details of the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site vi Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the visibility splay areas as shown on Drawing Number TW15/121/1C must be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.60 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas 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. vii Before the development is occupied or utilised the first 15.00 metres of the vehicle access, measured from the rear edge of the highway (excluding the vehicle crossing – see the Informative Note ), 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. viii Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the following works must have been constructed to the specification of the Local Planning Authority: The proposed traffic calming scheme, as shown on Drawing Number BTC16047/P02/P2 attached to the Transport Assessment as Appendix D, or similar scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: These specified works are seen as a pre-requisite for allowing the development to proceed, providing the necessary highway infrastructure improvements to mitigate the likely impact of the proposal. ix Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP must include: • construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) • a programme of construction works and anticipated deliveries • timings of deliveries so as to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods •• contractors’ arrangements (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 The development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.

REASON: 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. x No development shall take place until a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based on the hydrogeological context of the development, and including due consideration of the construction phase, has been 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.

REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, and to improve water quality xi 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. xii In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority and an investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of BS10175.

Should any contamination be found requiring remediation, a remediation scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out to a timescale to be first agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared and submitted which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure risks from contamination are minimised. xiii No development shall commence until details of the finished floor level(s) of the building(s) hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such levels shall be relative to an ordnance datum or such other fixed feature as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity xiv No development shall take place until all existing trees, shrubs and other natural features not scheduled for removal have been fully safeguarded and fenced in accordance with a scheme to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such fencing shall be maintained during the course of the works on site. No unauthorised access or placement of goods, fuels and chemicals, soil or other materials shall take place inside this fenced area. The soil levels within the fenced area shall not be raised or lowered and no trenching or excavation shall take place. In the event that protected trees (or their roots) become damaged, are lost or become otherwise defective in any way during such period, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately and a programme of remedial action as directed by the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out within a timescale to be specified by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity. xv No development shall be commenced until a further bio-diversity mitigation plan shall first have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The agreed measures shall be carried out to an agreed timescale. Thereafter there shall be no variation to the Bio-diversity plan without the prior written agreement of the local planning authority.

REASON: In the interests of nature conservation.