(Public Pack)Minutes Document for West Dorset District Council Planning Committee, 03/11/2017 10:00
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Public Document Pack WEST DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY 3 NOVEMBER 2017 Present: Cllrs F Horsington (Chairman), N Bundy (Vice-Chairman), T Bartlett, S Christopher, D Elliott, I Gardner, B Haynes, S Jones MBE, M Lawrence, F McKenzie and R Potter Apologies: Cllrs R Legg Also present: Cllr S Brown MBE, Cllr R Coatsworth, Cllr R Kayes and Cllr D Rickard Officers present (for all or part of the meeting): Ian Madgwick (DCC Highways), Jean Marshall (Head of Planning Development Management & Building Control), Lara Altree (Legal Services Manager (Planning and Environment)), Linda Quinton (Democratic Services Officer) and Andrew Galpin (Implementation Team Leader) 86. Code of Conduct There were no declarations of interest. 87. Planning Applications The following planning application, details of which are set out in the appendix to these minutes, was submitted, together with parish council’s observations and the recommendations of the Head of Planning Development Management. All representations received in respect of this application were reported. Arising from the report, the following matters were addressed 88. APPLICATION WD/D/17/000986 - LAND AT VEARSE FARM, BRIDPORT Jean Marshall, Head of Planning Development Management introduced the above outline application by Hallam Development for the development of up to 760 dwellings, 60 unit care home (Use Class C2), 4 hectares of land for employment (Use Classes B1, B2, B8), mixed use local centre (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, C3 and D1), primary school and associated playing fields (Use Class D1), areas of public open space and allotments, drainage works, the formation of new vehicular accesses to West Road and the formation of new pedestrian and cycle links. Members heard that the mixed use proposal was for the majority of the site which was allocated in the Local Plan under BRID1. Whilst the proposal did not cover the entire land allocation, the residual land adjacent to Coronation Road was in the ownership of a 3rd party. All the elements of the mixed use and related infrastructure requirements would be delivered under the proposal except for the pedestrian/cycle link across this 3rd party land. Section 10 of the report had set out the comments of the Local Plan Inspector in respect of this land allocation. Legislation dictated that determination of the application should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations said otherwise. All relevant statutory bodies had been consulted and it was in the officer’s professional opinion that there were no reasons under material considerations to refuse the proposals, but it was for the members to decide if they agreed with this conclusion. Members were provided with an update sheet which set out a number of amended S106 headings and conditions for consideration together with reference to a number of representations that had been received following publication of the agenda papers. J Marshall also highlighted the outline nature of the application, which would establish the principle of the development at this stage, with no consideration of the layout or design . The Plans were for illustrative purposes only. Members had undertaken a site visit earlier in the month and had viewed the site from a number of locations. One further aspect that was highlighted was the equalities duties of public sector bodies in relation to planning decisions. The Public Sector Equalities Duty (PSED) came into force in 2011 under the Equalities Act 2010. All public bodies, in discharging their functions, should have “due regard” to the duty. There were three main aims of the duty : Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; Taking steps to meet the needs of those in protected groups where their needs are different to others and Encouraging participation in public life or activities where participation is particularly low. J Marshall advised that it was clear from this that there was no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage – the duty was to “have regard” to and to remove or minimise disadvantages. There were two main areas of disadvantage cited from amongst the representations and these were in relation to i) access to healthcare and ii) movement, particularly along the B3162. With regard to healthcare, local residents had expressed concern about the impact of additional homes on healthcare provision. In having “due regard” to this concern and in light of the consultation response from the Clinical Commissioning Group, members would see that as part of the S106 agreement, a contribution to healthcare provision would be sought. (page 67 of the report refers) With regard to access along the B3162, section 11 of the report and in particular paragraphs 11.23 – 11.30 indicated that it was fully acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the footpath width along the road at present and whilst some improvements could be made, it was clear that some pinch points would remain. In having “due regard” for this and in particular how this could affect those covered by the Equalities Act, an alternative route had been sought and was achievable to provide a means of pedestrian/cycle access into town on existing and proposed new paths which would avoid the need to use the B3162. (paragraph 4.1.4 of the report refers). In facilitating both additional healthcare provision and alternative access, the Local Planning Authority was able to demonstrate that “due regard” to PSED had been given. 2 Members were also referred to the comments on PSED made by DCC highways in their response. Members were being asked to consider the detail of the two access points today and their provision was covered by conditions 18 and 19 within the recommendation. In addition, two pedestrian and cycle accesses would be provided; one to Magdalen Lane and the other to Pine View, both of which were covered by conditions 31 and 32 in the report. A third pedestrian/cycleway would be taken to the site boundary for this application , which could subsequently be linked to Coronation Road when the residual land came forward for development and this was covered by condition 45 on the update sheet. These pedestrian/cycle links are also covered within the headings for the S106. All bar two of the statutory consultees had raised no objection to the proposals, subject to conditions. Sport England had focussed on the alleged inadequate evidence to support the additional provision being made. Members were referred to paragraph 4.10.3 of the report which covered this point and officers believed that through the S106 agreement and proposed conditions, the objection from Sport England could not be sustained. The Conservation officer’s comments had been made on the indicative plans, which were not part of the committee’s consideration at this outline consent stage. The historic field patterns and historic assets at Vearse Farm and outlying buildings had been taken into consideration at the Local Plan Inquiry stage and again, would be difficult to sustain as a material consideration in light of the fact this is an outline application. The report was comprehensive in its approach to the elements of BRID1, which should be regarded as the starting point for the committee’s consideration of the application. A detailed set of planning obligation requirements and conditions were included in the report. Members were recommended to support the proposals. Members then heard representations from the following: D Tett, P Sturrock, N Ewens, N Jones, B Bates, R Freer, P Carney, P Culpin, S Carney, T Lambert, J Bickers, R Nichols (CPRE), L Gerolemou, J Grantham, G Fryer, S Fryer, G Maxwell, A Watson, P Summerton, R Millson, J Tigg and D Crammond. Cllr S Williams spoke on behalf of Bridport Town Council and Cllr B Driscoll spoke on behalf of Symondsbury Parish Council. A Birch spoke on behalf of the applicant. Cllrs D Rickard, R Kayes, S Brown and R Coatsworth all spoke as adjoining Ward Members. The representations related to: the impact of such a large development on the AONB, the unsuitability of the road network for such a large number of houses and employment use buildings, the impact on the town centre of the additional traffic, the likelihood of increased flooding in that location, the discrimination against people with disabilities; a lower density housing scheme would be preferable; a S106 contribution towards rail infrastructure; the need to secure the pedestrian/cycle link through the land outside of the application site 3 through the S106 agreement; the Council’s equalities obligations, the need for more scrutiny on the proposed accesses, the development should not be driven by national housing targets, detailed evidence from consultees had been ignored, the inaccuracies of the forecasted traffic figures, would the developers deliver 35% affordable homes, alternative preferable sites in Bridport for affordable homes, use of solar power, reduce the open market provision and increase the affordable provision, likely road danger at the location of the proposed school, lack of bus routes, poor quality proposals, the emerging Bridport Neighbourhood Plan, which should be taken into account, the need to protect the environment, the lack of business need, examples of developers elsewhere going back on their affordable housing obligations, the affordable housing won’t be affordable for local people, all local parish councils had expressed opposition to the proposals, an approval