APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/18/001955

APPLICATION SITE: LAND EAST OF DROVERS COTTAGE, CHETNOLE ROAD, LEIGH

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3no. detached dwellings with associated parking, access & landscaping

APPLICANT: Nylo Homes Ltd

CASE OFFICER: Charlotte Haines

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr N M Penfold

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Refuse

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 1.1 The site lies within a gap between the properties of Drovers Cottage and Bridgend at the western edge of the village of Leigh which does not have a defined development boundary. The site is on the edge of the village outside of the main cluster of buildings and has a rural character with hedges bounding the highway.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: 2.1 This application proposes the erection of 3no. detached, chalet-style, three-bedroomed houses. They sit in alignment facing Chetnole Road.

2.2 Two of the proposed houses would have integral garages and one would have a detached single garage. Two of the proposed houses would have parking and a shared access drive, derived off the existing site access. One of the proposed houses would have a parking and a private access through the formation of a separate new access.

2.3 Materials for the walls would be local stone, render and red brick, whilst the roofs would be constructed from clay roof tiles and natural slate. The existing hedge and tree along the roadside boundary will remain with new tree planting also proposed.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

Application No. Application Decision Date of decision Description 1/N/87/000047 Develop land for Appeal Dismissed 19 November residential 1987 purposes

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework As far as this application is concerned the following section(s) of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:

Section 2 - Achieving sustainable development Section 4 - Decision-making Section 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 11 - Making effective use of land Section 12 - Achieving well-designed places Section 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

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

4.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) As far as this application is concerned the following policies of the Local Plan are considered to be relevant: INT1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV2 – Wildlife and habitats ENV10 – The landscape and townscape setting ENV11 – The pattern of streets and spaces ENV12 – The 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 COM7 – Creating a safe and efficient transport network COM9 - Parking Standards in New Development

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 5.1 Supplementary Planning Document

 Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (adopted 2009)  West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment 2009  DCC Parking standards guidance

6. HUMAN RIGHTS: 6.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.

7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY: 7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.

Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED.

8. CONSULTATIONS: 8.1 Leigh Parish Council – Support but comment that perhaps 2 dwellings might be better on the size of plot. 8.2 Natural England – No further comment to make. 8.3 DCC Highways – No objections subject to conditions. 8.4 DCC Natural Environment Team – No comments to make in light of approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan. 8.5 DCP Environmental Health - No known contaminated land issues. Due to the proximity to existing residential dwellings to this site, building/demolition works should be carried out with regard to the following to protect residents from loss of amenity: • All effort shall be made to reduce the effect of any dust or noise produced by works on site. • Hours of operation during construction/refurbishment are to be limited to: o Monday – Friday: 0800 – 1800 o Saturday 0900 – 1300 o No activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

9. REPRESENTATIONS: 9.1 No third party representations have been received.

10. PLANNING ISSUES:

 Principle of development  Visual amenity  Residential amenity  Biodiversity  Highways  Affordable housing contributions  CIL  Tilted balance/lack of 5 year housing land supply

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

11.1 Principle of development

11.2 The site is outside of the Defined Development Boundary (DDB) and policy SUS2 of the adopted Local Plan 2015 does not permit new open market residential dwellings outside of the DDB which are considered to be in unsustainable locations. Leigh is a village of over 200 people (480 at the 2011 census) with a limited range of facilities: a small grocery shop and garage, village hall and church. These are not sufficient to meet the daily needs of residents. The rail station at Chetnole is a distance of 1.5 miles via an unlit, narrow and unpavemented lane for this distance.

11.3 In addition, no justification for the proposed dwellings has been provided to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required under policy HOUS6 e.g. as an exception site for affordable housing. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with Local Planning Policy.

11.4 Leigh contains very few services or facilities to meet the day to day needs of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. It is considered that future occupiers would be reliant on the car for the majority of their travel needs and as such, the site would not be sustainably located with regard to travel. The nearest main settlements of Yetminster and Sherborne have a range of services and access to public transport. However, the distances involved are too far to encourage walking and whilst some residents may cycle this would not be an option for the majority. Residents would therefore have little option other than to rely on the private car.

11.5 There are few local facilities or services that would benefit from the limited amount of support which could be expected from occupiers of three dwellings. The proposal would not comply with paragraph 78 of the NPPF with regard to enhancing or maintaining the vitality of rural communities. The economic benefit would only be short lived during the construction of the properties. It is considered that the three properties would not make such a significant contribution to the economy to be in accordance with the NPPF.

11.6 As set out above outside of DDB's the adopted Local Plan Policy SUS2 states that development will be strictly controlled, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints, and be restricted to certain types of development but does not permit new open market dwellings without occupancy restrictions unless through the conversion of existing buildings and even then they would be subject to limitations. However the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Councils have 4.88 years of supply across the local plan area. This means that para 11, footnote 7 of the NPPF is ‘engaged’ and relevant policies for the supply of housing, including Policy SUS 2, may no longer be considered to be up-to-date. Where a 'relevant policy' such as SUS 2 is considered to be 'out-of-date', Para 11 of the NPPF is also engaged, indicating that in such cases planning permission should be granted unless:

i) the application of policies in the framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or

ii) 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.

11.7 The following other main planning issues are considered and a conclusion on the Planning Balance.

11.8 Visual amenity

11.9 The proposed layout depicts three detached chalet bungalows arranged in a row that would front onto the Chetnole Road. This arrangement follows the established building line of the existing bungalows to the east. Therefore, the proposed siting of the houses would be in keeping with the general pattern and layout of development in the surrounding area.

11.10 The proposed chalet style bungalows would be set back from the road behind their respective front gardens and driveways ensuring an open and spacious character to the site. The spacious character of the plot would be compatible with the surrounding development and the rural character of the open countryside to the west. The retention of the majority of the roadside hedgerow will reflect the rural character along this part of the road. Other landscaping and tree planting is also proposed which would ensure the development is acceptable.

11.12 The proposed dwellings would have sufficient space either side and would comfortably sit in their respective plots. The site is located along a stretch of residential development with a variety of housing styles and sizes and as such it is considered that the individual designs of the propose dwellings, in terms of their size and architectural style would assimilate within this context. The proposed materials comprise a mix of brick, render and local stone across the three bungalows and with slate or clay tiles on the roofs. These materials along with the architectural features proposed for each bungalow are present in properties along the road.

11.13 This part of Chetnole Road comprises a mix of single storey bungalows and two storey dwellings. The development immediately to the east of the site comprises a row of single storey bungalows and the development to the west including Drovers Cottage is two storey dwellings. As such the proposed chalet type bungalows would relate in scale, form and appearance to the properties on either side of the site as illustrated on the submitted street scene plan.

11.14 On the whole, it is considered that the proposed dwellings are of an appropriate size, scale and mass that sit well within their plots, and are in keeping with the local character of the area and as such would accord with adopted policy ENV12.

11.15 Residential amenity

11.16 The proposed dwellings are to be sited between two residential plots of land. House 1 would be located approximately 2.5 metres from the boundary with Bridgend and a further 8-10 metres from the side elevation of this neighbouring property. House 3 would be positioned approximately 1 metre from the boundary with Drovers Cottage and a further 27 metres from the side elevation of this neighbouring property.

11.17 The proposed dwellings would be sufficiently spaced apart with a gap of approximately 8 metres between houses 1 and 2 and approximately 5 metres between houses 2 and 3.

11.18 The proposed dwellings are of a sufficient size to ensure acceptable living conditions for future occupants for each of the dwellings. Their proposed size of the site and layout also ensures an adequately sized external amenity area.

11.19 Any side elevation windows are mostly at ground floor and any rear elevations would have an oblique view to neighbours as such there would be no detrimental overlooking and the development is sufficiently spaced so as not to cause any overbearing concerns. It is noted that there is a first floor dormer window on house 1, however, this serves a bathroom and could be obscure glazed. There is also a rooflight on the opposing side elevation although this is high level to provide light to the stairwell.

11.20 Biodiversity

11.21 Having had regard to the submitted Ecological Appraisal Report undertaken KP Ecology LTD and accompanying approved biodiversity mitigation plan, it is considered that the proposal will have no adverse impact on biodiversity interests, subject to the recommendations contained within the document being followed.

11.22 Highways

11.23 The Highway Authority is satisfied with the scheme, subject to the inclusion of conditions and informatives on any approval notice. As such, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of access and parking.

11.24 Affordable housing contributions

11.25 Policy HOUS1 requires all new dwellings to make a 35% contribution towards affordable housing. However, in May 2016 National Planning Practice Guidance was updated to reflect the re-instatement of a Written Ministerial Statement from 28 November 2014. National planning policy and national guidance establish thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought.

11.26 In the light of changes to national policy and guidance, affordable housing contributions are not sought for this development of 3 dwellings as this site falls below this threshold of an affordable housing contribution.

11.27 CIL

11.28 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.

11.29 The proposed development is considered CIL liable.

11.30 Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development. Index linking as required by the CIL Regulations - (Reg. 40) is applied to all liability notices issued, using the national All-In Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. CIL payments are index linked from the year that CIL was implemented (2016) to the year that planning permission is granted.

11.31 Tilted balance/lack of 5 year housing land supply

11.32 The proposal would result in the addition of 3 dwellings and this weighs in favour of the scheme towards the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply, but the tilted balance applies and planning permission should be granted unless the impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

a. an economic objective - The proposal would have a limited amount of benefit in creating construction jobs. b. a social objective - the proposal includes 3 residential units. There is a significant need for more housing and this weighs in favour of the scheme. The site is not within a sustainable location however and this weighs against the scheme. c. an environmental objective - The proposal would not cause harm to the local character of the area or the biodiversity interests of the site. However, the site is within a village which does not have enough facilities and services to be considered a sustainable location for new build residential development. The location would involve walking 3.5 km to the nearest settlement of Yetminster which would reduce the likelihood of a future occupant choosing to walk and therefore the proposal is not supported for open market dwellings as it could not be considered to be adjoining a settlement with a DDB or within easy access through walking.

11.31 On balance, it is considered that the benefit that three additional dwellings would contribute to the housing land supply shortfall is a limited gain and one that would not be outweighed by the sites unsustainable location, contrary to the spatial policies contained in the adopted local plan.

11.32 The development is located within the open countryside where most forms of development including general open market dwellings are strictly controlled. By reason of the sites location in an area with limited facilities and services it is an unsustainable location with any future occupiers being reliant on a car to access services and facilities and to meet their day to day needs.

11.33 The proposed development fails to meet “sustainable development” as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework and is contrary to Paragraph 78 of the Framework. The resulting benefits of the additional dwellings does not outweigh the resulting harm as set out above. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the Councils spatial strategy for housing and contrary to Policies INT1 and SUS2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015).

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:

12.1 Given the above issues the proposal is considered unacceptable.

13. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal is recommended for the following reason:

The proposal is considered to not comply with all three tests of sustainability as set out in the NPPF. While it would satisfy the economic and social aspects it is considered that the environmental strand would be unacceptable in that future occupiers would be reliant mainly on the private car to access main services and facilities away from the village (given the few daily facilities that exist within the village). It would result in the provision of 3 additional open market dwellings in a location that is considered to comprise an unsustainable pattern of development due to the site’s location outside of any settlement that has a Defined Development Boundary or village that has been identified as being suitable within the settlement hierarchy as set out in the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SUS2 and INT1 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and is considered to not comply with all 3 tests of sustainability in accordance with paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would be contrary to Para 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework.