Planning Committee 15 February, 2018 WD/D/17/000152

Application Number: WD/D/17/000152 Full

Registration Date: 23 January, 2017

Application Site: LAND ADJACENT WINDSOR CLOSE, MOSTERTON

Proposal: Erection of 36 dwellings with associated works, including vehicular access, highway improvements, drainage, parking, landscaping and open space (amended scheme).

Applicant: Stonewater Ltd

Ward Members: Cllr A Alford, Cllr P Barrowcliff

Case Officer: David Hodges

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure; · 35% of the units as affordable housing · Provision and maintenance of the proposed open space · Applicant to fully fund a Traffic Management / calming scheme for the Broadwindsor Road (including the Traffic Regulation Order for the repositioning of the speed limit) and before the occupation of the first dwelling on the site and then APPROVE subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 15.1 below.

2. Description of development 2.1 Site is a parcel of land extending to 1.3ha mainly lying to the north of Windsor Close on the south-western edge of Mosterton. The site is a largely flat paddock enclosed by a well-established field hedge on its eastern side and bounded by the rear gardens of 1 – 6 Windsor Close and 1 – 6 Mosterton Cross on its southern side.

2.2 To the northern boundary is a post & rail fence and beyond this is a woodland. Circular public footpaths run through the site, linking into the woodland. Access to the site is from the Broadwindsor lane to the south where there is an existing field gate. The site extends around to the west of Windsor Close where the access point is proposed.

2.3 The site lies wholly within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Axe Valley Hills Landscape Character Area in the Council’s adopted Landscape Character Areas SPD (2009). 2.4 The proposal is a full application for the development of the site for 36 houses. The schedule of proposed dwellings is as follows;

10 No. 2-bed/3 person 76m2 House 17 No. 3-bed/4 person 86m2 House 1 No. 4-bed/8 person 120m2 House 4 No. 2-bed/4 person 70 m2 Bungalow 2 No. 2-bed/3 person 67m2 Bungalow 2 No. 1-bed/2 person 60m2 Bungalow

2.5 The submitted plans state 15 properties will be shared ownership, 12 will be rented and 9 units will be open market properties. The bungalow units are all proposed to be rented. The remaining units are split between the open market and shared ownership tenures. The proposed properties are a range of types with detached units, semi-detached properties and short terraces, 2-storey and single storey dwellings.

2.6 The access runs through the western part of the site with properties fronting onto the Broadwindsor lane and the access road. Two curved terraces front the road as it leads into the remainder of the site. Here a number of dwellings are proposed fronting onto an open space area. A street of bungalows fronts the access road on the southern side backing onto the Windsor Close/Mosterton Cross neighbours. Footpath links are shown connecting into the community woodland to the north.

2.7 The application follows an earlier outline scheme for the residential development of the site (App. No. WD/D/14/001541). This was refused by the Council but allowed on appeal, establishing the principle of the residential development of the site. A second outline application for the residential development of the site was also refused (WD/D/15/000118), however this became academic in light of the Inspector’s approval of the earlier application at appeal shortly after. It should be noted that this application is not a reserved matters submission in relation to the outline approval but a stand-alone application for full planning permission.

2.8 The scheme was originally submitted for 40 units. This has been revised down over two amendments to the proposals currently before members. Amendments were negotiated due to concerns over the impact of the scheme on the landscape character of the AONB and the quality of the layout and design of properties proposed. A reconsultation exercise has been undertaken in respect of the current proposals.

3. Main planning issues · Residential development outside village DDB · Housing land supply · Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty · Neighbour’s living conditions · Highway safety · Provision of affordable housing · Drainage/surface water/foul water · Scale of development in relation to village · Infrastructure 4. Statutory Consultations

Parish Council 4.1 Mosterton Parish Council strongly request that this unsustainable application for overdevelopment within the AONB is refused.

Conflict with adopted Local Plan The site lies outside the adopted defined development boundary for Mosterton as identified in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2011-2031. It is in breach of Policy SUS2. The proposed major development is within the AONB and fails to meet the requirements of a rural exception site. See Fig.1 with the current Local Plan DDB separating the built environment from the AONB identified, and outside of this, the proposed major residential development site is illustrated.

4.2 Sewerage Mosterton Parish Council is in receipt of a letter from South West Water dating from 2008 which advised the sewerage system was working at close to capacity. Although the applicants state they have confirmation from South West Water that, subject to upgrading works, the system could have capacity for additional dwellings, there is no indication of when these works are scheduled to take place. Currently residents in Mosterton regularly suffer from backflow of sewerage following rainfall, and the parish council would seek guarantees from South West Water that all such works would be completed, and the system rigorously tested before any new dwellings be added to the mains sewage system. Policy COM10 must be met in this regard prior to any permission. As it currently stands, the problems associated with the mains sewerage have not been overcome.

4.3 Highways An additional 40 dwellings would generate significant additional traffic, pulling out of the development, onto a single-track country lane, with no pavement available to pedestrians, many of whom could be elderly or children walking to the school.

4.4 Layout of proposed development Concerns were raised about the plots being very small, and close to one another, with houses, not bungalows placed close to existing dwellings, adversely impacting the amenity of neighbouring residents. This significant adverse effect on residential amenity is in clear conflict with Policy ENV16. Similarly, local objection to the setting, design and positioning of this intensive development lead us to question whether Policies ENV10 and ENV12 are adequately supported by the proposed scheme.

A refusal was given by WDDC previously for an application on this site for 10 dwellings on the basis of demonstrable harm caused to the AONB environment (WD/D/15/000118). This application has been submitted for 40 dwellings on the same site, with additional adverse impact on the community woodland to provide the drainage pond. 4.5 Footpath The proposal details moving the footpath, through the development (inc. across a proposed highway) not through countryside, as it is currently located.

4.6 Mosterton Village Plan (2015-2020) Mosterton Parish Council have a published Village Plan which details clearly the community’s wish to encourage small developments, not exceeding 10 in size within the adopted Local Plan defined development boundary for Mosterton. The current application is entirely incompatible with the development aspirations set out in the Village Plan and Local Plan.

4.7 Intensive Development The inclusion of road access to further undeveloped AONB land north and east of this proposed scheme and outside the adopted development boundary is of serious concern given the landowner’s marketing already seeks to extend this development site, stating it could “be more intensively developed and the residential area could also be extended.

4.8 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty This major proposed development site is inappropriate in scale to the size of the village and in clear breach of Policy SUS2, being outside of the adopted development boundary. It is within the AONB despite not being a type of development which requires a countryside location. It is not a rural exception site. It is of some concern to the Parish Council that as of 20th March 2017, the Dorset AONB have not been listed as a consultee on the application. We would query this apparent oversight. The NPPF affords special protection to AONB (para. 115) and we would ask this be given appropriate consideration.

4.9 Storm Water The plans indicate an attenuation point for storm water disposal. This is sited within the existing community wood, and will result in significant harm to this established community amenity.

4.10 Sewerage The issue of the sewerage was a material reason for the refusal of permission for the application for 10 dwellings on the same site. No remedial work has been undertaken on the system since that refusal. 40 dwellings will significantly exacerbate the existing backflow and flooding issues experienced in the village.

4.11 Sustainability To say a purely residential major development in the AONB is sustainable is incorrect. The development is clearly not sustainable in environmental or economic terms, offering nothing in terms of employment in the village. It does not bring with it required infrastructure improvements to mitigate the demonstrable harm its impact will cause to the village and existing limited community facilities – threatening to take Mosterton’s population from 604 to around 700 in one single housing development. This is not a defensible approach to sustainable community development and is unacceptable to existing residents and the Parish Council. Mosterton village has a very sparse and reducing bus service which will not enable residents of the development to travel on public transport to work or college.

The development brings no long-term employment benefit to the area, and the area has no employment opportunities for the c.96 residents that would move into the proposed development. The major development would however cause significant demonstrable damage to the immediate AONB environment and local area.

4.12 Highways The lane which all traffic from the development would emerge onto is a single-track road, used by significant numbers of large agricultural vehicles. These, plus additional traffic from the site would all need to merge onto the main road, which is already a dangerous junction to negotiate, many children crossing the road close to the junction in order to access the primary school, or reach the bus stop for the secondary school.

No plans have been included for a pedestrian crossing point to enable primary and secondary children to reach their schools in safety.

4.13 Local Plan At the previous appeal for this site, the lack of an adopted Local Plan was given as a reason for allowing the outline permission for 20 dwellings in June 2015. The Inspector’s detailed examination, approval and the subsequent adoption of the new Local Plan followed in Oct 2015. This new Local Plan includes the approved defined development boundary for Mosterton and details this site as lying outside of this and within the AONB. This more recent successful examination must surely take precedence over the now outdated appeal decision made for a very different scheme and prior to Local Plan adoption.

Cllr Alford was present at the Parish Council meeting and shared information on new government policy in relation to the weight afforded to newly adopted Local Plans and housing land supply. We would ask for clarification on this since the lack of a 5 yr housing land supply appears to be the applicant’s main argument.

Highway Authority 4.14 Following the submission of the revised application documents and drawings the County Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposals, subject to the developer entering into a Section 106 Agreement to fully fund and provide the Traffic Management / calming scheme for the Broadwindsor Road (including the Traffic Regulation Order for the repositioning of the speed limit) and before the occupation of the first dwelling on the site and the conditions as set out in 15.1 below.

5. Other consultations South West Water:

5.1 I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water are not satisfied that the public foul drainage network has capacity to support the development without causing downstream sewer flooding and in recognition of this a foul drainage evaluation has been undertaken which has identified the extent of improvements required to allow our support of the development. As such should your Council be mindful to approve the planning application the following condition would need to be imposed as per Section 15.1 below.

DCC Lead Local Flood Authority

5.2 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. The existing Greenfield site is understood to generate runoff which gravitates north / north-west, towards a small channel to the west and River Axe to the north, both of which have the status of Ordinary Watercourse at this location. Surface water mapping suggests that there may be some theoretical risk to the adjacent highway and along the northern boundary of the site during significant rainfall events

5.3 In compliance with the NPPF, the proposed development must be supported by a strategy of surface water management that is both viable and deliverable. This proposal is supported by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). This FRA document outlines a conceptual scheme of surface water management based upon attenuation and regulated discharge to a receiving watercourse, and some assessment of ground conditions, upon which we have accepted that infiltration rates would be unlikely to support the use of soakaways as a viable means of managing surface water.

5.4 On the basis of the additional information and documents listed above we withdraw our previous request/s for a (Holding) Objection, and have no in-principle objection to the proposed development, subject to the attachment of planning conditions (2) and informative (in 15.1 below).

DCC Planning Obligations Manager

5.5 On the basis that the site will be CIL liable I have no particular concerns. There will be a requirement for a s106 for the Littlewindsor Road highway works when agreed – which can be include in the AH s106.

Natural England

5.6 The proposed development site lies within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. In this case Natural England requests that the Dorset AONB Team is fully consulted over any implications of the application to the designated landscape of the AONB. Any decision should take full account the AONB Team’s advice and give the necessary weight to the relevant Dorset AONB Management Plan policies. Provided the Dorset AONB Team is satisfied that the proposals will not harm the protected landscape of the Dorset AONB then Natural England has no further comment on the proposals.

5.7 Natural England notes and welcomes the submission of a DCC NET approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan. Please note that in line with the Dorset Biodiversity Protocol Natural England has not considered the provisions of the NET approved BMP. Provided the full implementation of the approved BMP is made a planning condition then Natural England has no further comment on this aspect of the application.

Wessex Water

5.8 Sewerage at this location is provided by South West Water and we will leave it to them to comment. New water supply connections will be required from Wessex Water to serve this development. We refer the developer to our website.

MOD Safeguarding

5.9 No safeguarding objections.

DCC Rights of Way

5.10 Please note that the proposed works directly affect Footpath W35/14, this will need to be diverted.

WPA Consultants (Contaminated Land)

5.11 The documentation from Ruddelston Geotechnical dated Oct 2015, associated appendices and an Ecological Survey from David Leach dated December 2014 have been reviewed. The Ruddelston reporting is mainly concerned with geotechnical assessment which is not part of this review. Contamination issues can be said to have been assessed within a combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 site investigation. The reporting indicates adherence to technical guidance. A Groundsure environmental data search is evident. Although a few years have elapsed since the reports were prepared it is unlikely that site characterisation has significantly changed.

5.12 The findings of the contamination risk assessment submitted are that there are no significant contaminant linkages to investigate further and that no specific remediation measures are required. This includes matters associated with radon and asbestos. Specifications for footings and concrete have been made in the reporting indicative of naturally occurring sulphate having elevated concentrations in site soils. WPA advises that a closing report should be provided to demonstrate that either unexpected contamination was encountered and appropriately dealt with during development, or that no further such issue arose before. This to be reviewed before the contaminated land planning conditions are deemed as having been met in full.

DCP Environmental Health

5.13 No comments

Dorset Waste Partnership

5.14 No comments

Dorset Councils Partnership Housing Enabling Team 5.15 West Dorset District Council’s Housing Register has over 1400 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 104 new affordable dwellings will need to be developed each year. This figure demonstrates that there is a significant level of housing need in West Dorset.

5.16 It is proposed to provide a total of 40 houses; 35% will be affordable units which will be controlled by a S106 agreement in perpetuity. Stonewater states in the proposal that it intends to provide affordable housing above policy requirements, subject to HCA grant funding, although these will not be controlled by a S106 agreement they will provide additional affordable homes across the site. These will funded by the Homes & Community Agency, owned by the Housing Association and will meet the NPFF definition of affordable housing. Consideration needs to be given to the appearance of the affordable rented housing which should be well integrated and not distinguishable from the shared ownership housing. Currently the majority of the rented properties are situated together on the site; it would be beneficial if the mix of houses were further integrated so that there is a genuine assimilation of tenure.

5.17 There is an evident housing need in West Dorset and affordable housing is important to communities, particularly rural ones, where earning levels are substantially lower and average house prices are higher than in urban areas. Although not fitting the normal rural exception site model, this development will be backed by funding from the HCA, reflects the NPFF definition. The design of the development should demonstrate a mixed, well integrated and tenure blind scheme; and should ensure that the affordable housing reflects the identified housing demand with consideration given to the priority of the rural households with a local connection to West Dorset. It will assist in meeting the need for affordable housing in the district and assist with the long term sustainability of the village.

6. Other representations 6.1 45 letters have been received from third parties across the three consultation exercises. These raise the following issues; · Lack of infrastructure · Additional traffic · No. of houses excessive · Increased pollution and noise · Overlooking/loss of privacy · Loss of property values · Flood risk/drainage issues · Loss of views & outlook · Light pollution · More houses not needed · Impacts on wildlife · Broadband can’t support more houses · Crime rates rise when more houses are built in rural areas · Public footpath should not be moved · Excessive increase in size of village/village would be swamped · Not enough jobs locally · Site is outside Defined Development Boundary · Limited bus service, occupiers reliant on cars · Increased parking problems · Impact on AONB/landscape · Precedent for further development outside DDB · Foul water network capacity · If building to take place, bungalows along southern boundary is preferable to large detached houses · Concentration of affordable housing in one part of village · School at capacity · No safe pedestrian route to village school · Access is hazardous · Dwellings akin to 19th century slums · Density out of keeping · Contrary to village plan which only supports small developments · Not 100% affordable and does meet exceptions site criteria

A petition containing 70 signatures was also received.

A letter was received from Sir Oliver Letwin MP on 22 March 2017. This advises that since the appeal decision the Council has adopted its Local Plan “and there has been a shift in government policy in relation to Local Plans and land supply where the Local Plan is of recent date.”

“Given that the current application does not conform with the policies in the Local Plan, and given the latest change in Government policy, I very much hope that your planning committee will reject this application, which seems to constitute significant overdevelopment at this site.”

A further letter from the MP was received on 11 January 2018. This states; “I understand that Mosterton Parish Council is now working towards the production of a neighbourhood plan – and, although such a plan does not yet exist, I hope that the District Council will take full account of the views of the Parish Council about the intensity of this development.”

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

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

App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer WD/D/14/0015 OUT Residential development R 14 DR 41 Novembe r 2014 WD/D/14/00154 REF Residential development ALW 30 June DR 1 (Appeal) 2015 WD/D/15/0001 OUT Residential development R 19 June DR 18 2015 9. The Development Plan

West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015)

INT1. - PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ENV1. - LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE AND SITES OF GEOLOGICAL INTEREST ENV2. - WILDLIFE AND HABITATS ENV4. - HERITAGE ASSETS ENV5. - FLOOD RISK ENV9. - POLLUTION AND CONTAMINATED LAND 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 HOUS3.- OPEN MARKET HOUSING MIX HOUS6. - OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES COM1.- MAKING SURE NEW DEVELOPMENT MAKES SUITABLE PROVISION FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE 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 Planning Guidelines (2009) 10.2 Landscape Character Areas (2009)

11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 None

12. Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

12.1 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. 12.2 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)

12.3 Other sections of the NPPF relevant to this application are listed below. These will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report. 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

12.4 Paragraph 49: “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

National Planning Practice Guidance

12.5 On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This includes the following statement:

“This guidance is intended to assist practitioners. Ultimately the interpretation of legislation is for the Courts but this guidance is an indication of the Secretary of State’s views. The department seeks to ensure that the guidance is in plain English and easily understandable. Consequently it may sometimes be oversimplified and, as the law changes quickly, although we do our best, it may not always be up to date.”

Elements of the Planning Practice Guidance relevant to this application will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report.

12.6 “How is major development defined in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, for the purposes of the consideration of planning applications in these areas?

Planning permission should be refused for major development in a National Park, the Broads or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. Whether a proposed development in these designated areas should be treated as a major development, to which the policy in paragraph 116 of the Framework applies, will be a matter for the relevant decision taker, taking into account the proposal in question and the local context. The Framework is clear that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in these designated areas irrespective of whether the policy in paragraph 116 is applicable.”

13. Planning issues Principle of Development

13.1 Mosterton has a Defined Development Boundary (DDB) in the adopted Local Plan. However this site lies outside of the DDB although it is directly adjacent to it, encircling it on two sides. The spatial strategy in Policy SUS2 seeks to deliver greater proportion of development at the larger and more sustainable settlements with Weymouth and Dorchester the highest priority locations for development. Below this, the market towns and settlements in the second tier of the spatial strategy are a focus for development including Beaminster. Where development is to take place in rural areas, Policy SUS2 seeks to direct this to the most sustainable rural locations stating; “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.” As the site is outside of the village’s DDB, the scheme would be contrary to this policy

13.2 However, currently the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. The Council’s own monitoring currently puts the supply at 4.94 years. In such a situation Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises “Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” Policy SUS2 is a policy for the supply of housing, seeking as it does to restrict development outside of development boundaries. It is therefore “out-of-date” in light of the Authority’s current HLS and does not enjoy its full statutory weight as part of the development plan.

13.3 This brings into play the “tilted balance” in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. This advises that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless: “–– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or –– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.” In respect of the “specific policies”, a footnote in the NPPF advises that this includes policies relating to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

13.4 The implications of the lack of a 5-year supply for LPAs and the consequent weight to be attached to affected policies has led to a number of court cases since the introduction of the NPPF. The most relevant of these is the Supreme Court judgement in Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes & SSCLG and Richborough Estates v Cheshire East BC & SSCLG [2016]. This confirmed that for the purposes of applying the tilted balance in paragraph 14, the reference to “specific policies” in the paragraph above includes those relevant policies within an adopted Local Plan. Whilst these policies continue to retain their statutory status, the Supreme Court ruling determined that in considering the weight to be attached to these policies in the balancing exercise, the Local Planning Authority would need to have regard to whether continuing to apply its environmental and amenity policies with their full rigour may frustrate the objective of the Framework to ensure every effort “be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.” So for example this would potentially affect the weight applied to Policy ENV1 relating to development in the AONB. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Council needs to have due regard to whether applying full weight to AONB policy may be working against the Government’s stated aim to significantly increase housing supply and delivery.

13.5 It should be noted that the effect of paragraph 49 is not to render Policy SUS2 worthless. It still has weight in the decision-making process. Legal rulings have held that the weight to be attached to out-of-date policies will be a matter of planning judgement based on factors such as; · the extent to which the HLS fall short of providing a five-year supply; · the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it; · or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy – i.e. does it seek to protect the site as open space or undeveloped to serve a particular planning purpose

13.6 Bearing in mind the site’s location directly adjacent to the village DDB, it would need to be regarded as a sustainable location for the growth of the village. This would be consistent with the Council’s conclusion in respect of App. No. WD/D/14/001541. This application was not refused on the basis that the development would be in an unsustainable location and this was not disputed by the appeal Inspector. The DDB for the village was carried forward into the current LP and the assessment that the site is a potentially sustainable location for further development remains unchanged.

13.7 The site lies within the AONB and this enjoys the highest levels of protection under Government guidance and Local Plan policy. The purpose of Policy ENV1 is to ensure that development which does take place does not harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the area. This was acknowledged by the appeal Inspector in allowing the earlier appeal, where they identified the Council’s previous landscape policies were potentially contrary to the NPPF’s position that some development can take place within the AONB. The current Policy ENV1 is now consistent with central Government guidance in the Framework. This does not mean that the scheme automatically has an acceptable impact on the AONB – this is explored in detail below. However, the Council could not resist the site being developed in principle simply because it lay within the AONB, particularly where the site already has permission for residential development. It must be able demonstrate harm is caused by the development to the special qualities or natural beauty of the AONB and moreover that this harm outweighs the benefits of the scheme after having due regard to the weight which should be attached to this policy in light of the tilted balance being brought into play.

Principle of Development - Conclusion

13.8 The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing as required by the NPPF. Consequently its policies for the supply of housing are out-of-date. In the circumstances the Council would not be able to reject the site on a matter of principle that it lay outside of Mosterton’s defined development boundary. The Council need to consider whether the adverse impacts of the scheme significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether AONB policies for example indicate development should be resisted. In addition, there is a fall-back position for the applicant of the existing outline consent granted at appeal which can still be implemented.

13.9 There remains a pressing need for the Councils to bolster housing supply and look to additional sites to increase this supply. In the circumstances, preference should be given to the most sustainable locations to deliver this additional housing. The acceptability of the site for development has already been tested by the higher authority of the Planning Inspectorate and found to be acceptable. It therefore has the benefit of planning permission and is considered to be a reasonable opportunity to bolster housing supply and is moreover preferable to other sites where the acceptability of development is yet to be tested. Therefore the principle of the residential development of the site remains acceptable. The additional areas within the red line on this current application are not part of the land shown for residential development on the current scheme and therefore do not raise issues not previously considered by the Inspector on the earlier appeal.

Whether “major development” in the AONB

13.10 If a scheme is concluded to be a “major development” within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, this brings into play the guidance in paragraph 116 of the NPPF. This advises that “Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest.” Due to the additional limitations on development this test imposes, it is necessary to be clear on whether the scheme is major development in assessing the merits of the scheme.

13.11 A basic point is that a major development in the AONB is not the same as the statutory definition of a major development in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010. The courts have held that a scheme of 10 units or more is not automatically “major development” for the purposes of NPPF 116 but is a matter of planning judgement.

13.12 In making this assessment, regard is had to the assessment made on the previous application (14/1451) by the AONB team that the scheme was not major development and therefore paragraph 116 was not engaged. This was noted by the appeal Inspector and they did not apply the NPPF 116 test in allowing the scheme. The allowed scheme was in outline with all matters reserved and no dwelling numbers stated. The Inspector considered a possible layout but noted this to be for illustrative purposes only.

Whether “major development” in the AONB - Conclusion

13.13 The area shown for the development is the same as for the allowed scheme although it arguably now involves a more intensive development than that envisaged on the outline application. On that basis, it is considered consistent to continue to regard the scheme as not being major development for the purposes of paragraph 116. It is noted that the Dorset AONB consultation response draws a similar conclusion. This does not mean that the remaining guidance on protected landscapes in the NPPF and the adopted Local Plan do not continue to apply to the assessment of the scheme. They do with due regard to the weight which can be attached to these policies as set out in 13.4 above, but the proposal in this instance is not considered to attract the additional test in paragraph 116 of the NPPF.

Spatial Strategy

13.14 As noted in 13.1 above, where development is to take place in rural settlements with DDBs, the Local Plan advises this will take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement. At the 2011 census the population of the village was 604. There are a number of extant consents for residential development in or adjoining the village including; WD/D/14/002887: 10 units WD/D/16/000332: 7 units WD/D/15/000201: 3 units WD/D/15/001771: 5 units In addition the existing commitment at the site granted via the appeal decision is treated as 20 units bearing in mind the s106 agreement.

13.15 This totals 45 units. The consents provide for a range of properties. Working on an average occupation rate of 2.2 people per dwelling, this would increase the village population by approximately 99 or a sixth. If we substitute the current scheme for the extant outline approval, the number of new dwellings for the village goes up to 61, with the majority (59%) now being provided by this single site. Applying the same average occupancy rates, this would increase the size of the village by approximately 22%.

13.16 The question to be addressed in this application therefore is whether if the village grows by around a quarter over the short to medium-term (3-5 years), is this increase at an “appropriate scale” to the size of the settlement. It should be noted that when the Inspector allowed the previous appeal on the site, they were considering the position against the former West Dorset District Local Plan and a housing land supply of 3.1 years. In particular, as Policy SUS2 was only emerging at that time, the Inspector did not give this policy statutory weight and moreover did not direct themselves to whether the development of the site would be at an appropriate scale in their decision.

13.17 It should also be noted that notwithstanding the permissions approved and sought, the village would not grow by a quarter in one go. We can expect with a larger scheme such as this that it is likely the houses would be delivered over a number of years depending on market conditions or any triggers in the proposed legal agreement for delivering the affordable housing. Similarly, some of the other smaller approved schemes in 13.14 above may be delivered in one go or may not be implemented. This may mean that increases to the size of the village in any one year would be much smaller – a few percent per year - and would only reach the cumulative total after a number of years, if at all.

13.18 Members should also note that as a comparison, the Local Plan allocates a single site for Beaminster (Policy BEAM1) for around 120 units, a site which was carried over from the former West Dorset Local Plan and which the LP acknowledges has not come forward previously due to viability issues. At around 250 additional residents this would represent a growth of Beaminster of around 8% - excluding existing development commitments – which the Issues & Options (I&O) document for the Local Plan review notes have been very low in the town (on average 3 dwellings per annum). It is noted the current Issues & Options document seeks to address this by allocating considerable amounts of new development to meet Beaminster’s growth of around 850 units.

13.19 On a strict interpretation, a proportionately larger growth in the size of Mosterton would seem to run counter to Policy SUS2 where a greater level of growth is not planned for the nearest town which is to be a focus for development under the second tier of SUS2. However, such a position is considerably undermined because the Council is not meeting its housing targets and has persistently under-delivered against its housing targets – thereby requiring a greater buffer (of 20%) against its housing target.

13.20 As noted in 13.3 – 13.4, Policy SUS2 is also currently out-of-date and thereby does not attract its full statutory weight. Its provisions should nonetheless be applied to the proposals and balanced against the benefits of providing housing in a broadly sustainable location. SUS2 is a spatial strategy which seeks to guide development to the most appropriate locations in the interests of complementing Policy INT1 which promotes sustainable development and the strategic objectives of the Plan. The Local Plan at paragraph 3.3.27 notes that whilst there remains demand for housing in rural area “there are problems associated with providing development in locations that have few facilities and where people tend to commute to the towns.” Increasing such commuting is contrary to the strategic objective in the LP to provide greater opportunities to reduce car use hence the focus on development in towns.

13.21 The Local Plan Inspector was critical of the omission of sites from the Local Plan for Beaminster which they considered to have potential workable solutions to the objections raised. They were also critical of the lack of new allocations for other settlements in the 1st & 2nd tier of the settlement strategy as part of the plan. The LP was adopted with a marginal HLS of 5.1 years and there was always the risk that this may slip below five years if the historic under-provision persisted. This has proved to be the case. Current proposals in the Issues & Options document could see Beaminster’s population grow by potentially 50 – 60% in the long-term.

Spatial Strategy - Conclusion

13.22 Policy SUS2 requires development in rural areas to take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement. The Local Plan does not set a figure either in unit numbers, area or population growth of what is an “appropriate scale” for any of the villages with DDBs. Therefore it will be a matter of planning judgement each time on the facts of the case and any existing commitments. The I&O document seeks to take an ambitious approach towards housing growth for the settlements in the first and second tiers of SUS2 and the level of growth put forward as part of the options for Beaminster is not unique in the consultation. 13.23 In the circumstances, for the Council to take a position of arguing that such a growth of Mosterton is excessive as a matter of principle would be difficult, particularly on a site which already has permission. Furthermore, if the scale of growth was excessive for the village, officers would expect this to be more obviously revealed in harm emerging from the assessment of the remaining material considerations. It is therefore necessary to identify if there is an overriding harm which results from growth of this scale which outweighs the presumption in favour of development.

Landscape impact and impact on the AONB

13.24 The site lies within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This is afforded the highest level of landscape protection under the NPPF and Policy ENV1 of the adopted Local Plan. Paragraph 115 of NPPF advises that “great weight” should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of an AONB. Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 require that ‘in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land’ in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, relevant authorities ‘shall have regard’ to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of AONBs in making decisions that affect it.

13.25 When the previous Inspector considered the principle of the development of the site, the main issue was the impact of the scheme on the character and appearance of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In their assessment the Inspector noted that whilst the landscape around Mosterton fell into the wider landscape character; “the landscape hereabouts is not devoid of built development.” And “whilst the village sits within this attractive landscape, it does not relate to, or contribute towards, the essential characteristics of the AONB which need to be respected.” (paragraph 8).

13.26 The Inspector noted that development of the site would extend the built-up area of the village into the AONB and it would be clearly seen in the wider area. They noted the loss of this part of the rural fringe would inevitably result in some degree of harm. However they stated; “taking account of the other development in this vicinity, it would not appear wholly incongruous or incompatible with the character of the landscape around this edge of the village. That is, although the proposed scheme would represent an expansion of the village, the village is already within the landscape of the AONB in this vicinity. The proposed scheme would not represent a significant or major change in the established relationship between built development and the countryside hereabouts.”

13.27 The assessment of the Inspector establishes the principle of the development of the site for residential. Their conclusion was that the development of the site would not have significant adverse impacts on the qualities of the landscape thereby complying with Policy ENV1 and the NPPF. There remains an extant permission capable of being implemented and the Council has no grounds to revisit the principle of developing this particular site. A number of the 3rd party responses refer to the appeal decision pre-dating the adoption of the Local Plan. However, as noted by the Inspector, the Council’s previous policies were potentially in conflict with the guidance in the NPPF. They considered the scheme against the Councils’ (then emerging) Policy ENV1 and concluded the development of the site would not breach the harm test in this policy.

13.28 Of course, the Inspector was only considering the principle of the outline application for the site. In this case we are considering a full application for 36 dwellings with all relevant information. Officers have consulted with your Landscape Officer. In this instance, in line with the Councils’ established protocol, they have also consulted with the Dorset AONB team. Their conclusion on the initial scheme for 40 units was that “although the principle of development has been established at this site, the significant increase in the impact of the proposal appears is considered to exceed the capacity of the site.”

13.29 Following the initial responses to the original scheme for 40 units, your landscape, urban design and planning officers have negotiated with the applicants to address the areas of concern over the landscape impact, layout and design issues. This led to a first revision down to 37 units and then a further amendment to 36 unit scheme before members.

13.30 The Dorset AONB team considered the revised 37-unit scheme and advised that;

“I consider that the revised design has made a number of changes that reduce the effect of the development on the wider landscape. In terms of the specific design amendments that were suggested, the revised design has responded as follows:

· It was suggested that “the design/layout of the site and the strategy for landscaping could be better integrated”. The design has now incorporated a connection between the central open space within the housing and the greenspace to the north. Greater areas of planting have been incorporates to improve the visual connectivity and coherence of these areas.

· With regard to the western boundary, it was suggested that it would be “much more appropriate to utilise a straight native hedgerow, ideally with some hedgerow trees”. Although the revised design has not strictly incorporated the suggestion, there has been a significant improvement to the extent of planting and the integration of the proposed parking spaces with the landscaping scheme.

13.31 · It was noted that “the arrangement and orientation of buildings across the site is quite complex in comparison with nearby housing at Windsor Close and Mosterton Cross. There are very limited views through the development and the arrangement appears likely to exacerbate its overall perceived scale and mass.” There has been a degree of improvement in the plans, as a result in a small reduction in the number of units and a change to the layout in a number of areas. The outcome of these amendments have been varied. At the southern gateway to the site the revised alignment has a simpler linear arrangement than previously proposed, which I regard as an improvement. Elsewhere, the arrangement of plots 34-37 appears to have tightened, in an amendment that will increase the massing of these single-storey dwellings. The central area of the development has been adjusted, although not to the degree that it’s overall mass has been substantially been reduced, in my opinion. However, the increase in planting to the north of this area will serve to eventually reduce the visual impact of this portion of the site, particularly when viewed from the bridleway to the north.

· It was suggested that “the approach to varying roofing materials may increase the visual impact of the development” and as a result the proposal adopts a suitable uniform roofing material.

The most significant matter that I have not mentioned above, is the overall density of the proposal. Clearly the slight reduction in dwellings has decreased density. Nonetheless, this is a relatively dense housing development in a peripheral rural location, which predominantly relies of the maturation of planting to achieve mitigation of its visual impact. Given the wider built context and the presence of adolescent trees within the small community woodland to the north, I am of the opinion that although the effects of the revised design are adverse, they are borderline tolerable.”

Landscape impact and impact on the AONB – Conclusion

13.32 Whilst the Dorset AONB team remained cautious in their response to the 37-unit scheme, your urban design and planning officers remained unsatisfied that the layout and designs were of sufficient quality to comply with the relevant design criteria in policies ENV10, 11 & 12. So further negotiations took place resulting in the current 36-unit proposals before members. This further reduced numbers and also noticeably reduced the extent of development in the northern corner of the site. This allows for a further enlargement of the proposed community woodland extension along the northern boundary with additional planting indicated.

13.33 It is considered that this results in the development being read more closely with the existing developed edge of the southern part of the village in wider views. The development has softer edges to the north and western sides and a high proportion of single storey properties, limiting wide-ranging impacts. Overall the amended scheme results in a less incongruous incursion into the open countryside. There are still impacts associated with the scheme on landscape character but these are not considered to result in harm to the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the AONB which is the test in Policy ENV1. The impacts from developing the site will be weighed in the planning balance.

Design and Layout

13.34 As noted above, the scheme has been amended twice in an effort to address officer’s concerns over the layout and design aspects and as part of a wider concern over the impacts of the scheme on the AONB. These concerns have dovetailed in some respects although as pointed out above, whilst the scheme has reached the point where the AONB team cautiously removed their objection, officers were still not satisfied the scheme met the high quality layout and design sought under policies ENV10, 11 & 12 and the Council’s design guidance. 13.35 The site has a relatively narrow frontage to the lane but there is sufficient room to accommodate the site access and a 2-storey cottage fronting onto the lane creating interest at this point but also announcing when approaching from the west that you would be arriving at the village. The short terraces of Plots 2-4, 5-8 & 9-13 are considered to create a strong sense of enclosure on entering the development and also successfully turn the corner of the road leading into the site. It is felt that these aspects of the scheme are particularly well realised with simple terraced designs in red brick and recon stone with natural slate roofs. The latest revisions have also added some chimneys.

13.36 Where officers were less satisfied was with the remainder of the scheme. Whilst the properties fronting onto the open space was a welcome part of the layout, introducing a green wedge into the scheme and softening the transition to the open countryside beyond, it was felt this had led to some unacceptable compromises with the remainder of the layout. Amendments were sought to Units 7 & 28 to ensure these were ‘dual-fronted’ and addressed not only the proposed open space but the road as well. Frontage parking which was felt to be dominating the approach to this part of the site was also omitted.

13.37 The provision of the row of bungalows raises some issues because there are difficulties in creating a strong sense of enclosure to the street scene with the proposed design and they have a tendency to appear overly suburban in this village fringe location. Whilst accepting this part of the layout as a way to deliver the range of housing sought by the applicant, it was considered that the remainder of the scheme to the north failed to create a suitably coherent urban form for the proposed dwellings. This led to some obvious compromises with the remaining houses in their amenity and relationship with each other. The revisions sought by officers have removed an awkward front-to-back relationship with properties fronting onto the open space, creating a much better defined street fronted by development on both sides. The area behind is given over to a parking court with carports and has allowed for an increase in the communal woodland extension, further softening the edges of the development.

13.38 With regards to the remainder of the house designs, this continues the same palette of red brick and recon stone with natural slate roofs. The bungalows also incorporate timber cladding. Overall designs are of modest properties in keeping with the traditional cottages within the village. In addition, the designs incorporate a number of detailed features in their decorative porches, exposed purlins, timber lintels and recon stone cills which are considered to lift the designs, highlighting their quality over and above standardised house designs.

Design & Layout – Conclusion

13.39 The layout has evolved over the revisions to the scheme to deliver a development which addresses the landscape and urban design officer’s concerns. The approach is different to the post-war layout of Windsor Close/Mosterton Cross but instead draws more on the closer-knit character of the village’s historic core and the use of recon stone is reflective of this. This is considered to be an appropriate approach which allows the scheme to make effective and efficient use of this site on the village fringe. 13.40 Policy ENV10 requires that all development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness and be informed by the character of the site and its surroundings. Policy ENV11 seeks to deliver streets and spaces that are well defined, safe and pleasant to use, with active and overlooked public areas and secure private areas. Policy ENV12 requires the general design to be in harmony with the adjoining buildings and the area as a whole and buildings to relate positively to adjoining buildings and other features that contribute to the character of the area.

13.41 Overall the design and layout of the scheme is considered to strike a suitable balance of the criteria in policies ENV10 – 12 whilst complying with Policy ENV15 to make appropriate use of the site and also HOUS3 in providing a mix of property sizes and scales within the site.

Impact on Neighbours’ Living Conditions

13.42 The properties most immediately affected by the proposals are the semi-detached dwellings to the south in Windsor Close and Mosterton Cross. These share some similarities in layout with the properties fronting onto a communal green or parking area. All properties stand in relatively generous plots with a minimum of 14m from the rear of these neighbours to the southern site boundary and 10m from 1 Windsor Close to the west boundary.

13.43 Across the scheme the proposed dwellings back onto the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties, thereby establishing an ordinary back-to-back residential relationship between the existing and proposed properties. The exception to this are the two small parking courts serving plots 3 – 8. These adjoin the rear gardens of 2 & 3 Windsor Close. There will be some disturbance from vehicles using these areas and the layout proposes a 1.8m close-board fence along the boundaries with Windsor Close and Mosterton Cross which will serve to limit some of this noise impact.

13.44 In terms of building-to-building distances, at the closest point there is 19.5m from the side of Plot 1 to the corner of 1 Windsor Close. Due to the orientation of this neighbour, the views towards the development are angled and the window-to-window distances exceed 20m. The Councils’ adopted Design Guidance advises that “20 metres between facing buildings will normally give good privacy between the rear of buildings. Closer distances may be possible where homes are not directly facing each other, or suitable screening can be achieved.” (para.7.5.2).

13.45 Along the southern boundary of the site, Plots 18 – 25 are single storey properties. There is around 25m from the rear of these proposed properties to the nearest existing dwelling. Due to the lack of 1st floor accommodation in these proposed units, they are not considered to adversely impact on privacy levels enjoyed by the neighbouring dwellings. Plots 26-27 in the far NE corner are a 2-storey semi-detached pair. There is 25m again from the rear of these proposed dwellings to No’s 4 & 5 Mosterton Cross, thereby complying with the guidance in the Council’s Design SPD. Impact on Neighbours’ Living Conditions - Conclusions

13.46 Policy ENV16 seeks to ensure development is designed to minimize its impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of both existing residents and future residents. Further guidance on how to achieve this is within the adopted Design SPD. In terms of assessing the acceptability of the scheme against ENV16, the test in the policy is whether the proposals have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of existing and proposed occupiers. This allows for the Council to manage changes in neighbouring living conditions without putting all development in jeopardy.

13.47 Outside of previously developed land, the most sustainable locations for the expansion of existing settlements will often involve developing land immediately beyond a settlement’s existing fringes. As the edges of settlements will often be residential, it will not be unusual to see areas developed which adjoin properties who have previously enjoyed views over the immediate countryside. If the test was to ensure that development had no impact on such views, this would have the effect of stymieing development or alternatively pushing to more remote and unsustainable locations, thereby conflicting with other policies and objectives of the LP.

13.48 Having considered the range of impacts associated with the proposed layout and designs, it is considered that there will be a change in the outlook from the neighbouring properties who will be able to see the proposed properties beyond their rear boundaries. However, due to the siting of the new dwellings and their design, the proposals are not considered to result in an overbearing impact. Nor are they considered to cause a significant loss of outlook to Windsor Close/Mosterton Cross as these properties will continue to enjoy longer-range views out towards the open countryside beyond and through the proposed development. The layout meets the privacy standards in the Councils’ SPD. In terms of any additional noise and disturbance, the domestic use proposed and associated traffic movements would result in common residential relationship seen across the village. Overall the scheme is not considered to breach the significant adverse impact test in ENV16.

Highways

13.49 Being located at the fringe of the village, the access to the site has the character of a rural lane, enclosed by established hedges and without footways. Development of the site would likely lead to increased pedestrian movements along the lane towards Mosterton Cross, particularly to reach the village school for example. The scheme provides footways within the development and proposes to provide a new footway from the site along the lane to the Windsor Close access and beyond. In addition, a new priority section of highway will be created outside the application site towards the village. The current 30mph limit will also be extended westwards beyond the site.

13.50 The proposals seeks to facilitate safer pedestrian movement from the site towards the village and its amenities. This would also provide a benefit for existing occupants seeking to access the public footpaths towards the community woodland. The provision of the visibility splay from the site access and the proposed highway works will have moderate urbanising effect over a short length of the lane before it resumes its rural character beyond the site and Such highway priority sections are not uncommon in West Dorset’s villages.

13.51 Within the site, each dwelling is provided with 2 parking spaces in a combination of on-plot, parking courts and car ports. There are also additional visitor’s spaces shown on the submitted layout. The proposed layout complies with the guidance in the adopted Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset Residential Car Parking Study and thereby complies with Policy COM9. There is a balance to be made in terms of accommodating adequate parking under the adopted guidelines and delivering a layout meeting the urban design aspirations of the Councils’ policies and SPD and the amendments to the scheme have been partly concerned with delivering this appropriate combination.

Highways – Conclusion

13.52 The proposals have been considered by the Highways Authority and their conclusion is that the scheme is acceptable subject to the applicant entering into an agreement to deliver the proposed highway works and a condition to secure the submitted layout. The delivery of these works would provide appropriate mitigation for the highway impacts of the development. Through this the scheme would meet the tests in COM7 to ensure that development would not have a severe detrimental effect on road safety. In addition, the applicant is considered to have demonstrated that the volume of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed 36 units can be accommodated on the local highway network without exacerbating community severance and that the residual cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network are not likely to be severe. Accordingly the scheme complies with Policy COM7.

Drainage & Foul Water

13.53 The Parish Council and a number of third parties have raised the issue of foul water drainage from the site. These comments state that the existing network is at capacity leading currently to problems with overflowing and therefore there is insufficient capacity to accommodate further dwellings on the system. The Councils’ position on utilities and service infrastructure is set out in Policy COM10; “Development will not be permitted where the problems associated with the lack of necessary utilities service infrastructure, including energy supplies, drainage, sewerage, sewage treatment and water supply, cannot be overcome.”

13.54 If there is an issue with foul water capacity, this does not mean that no development can occur. The onus instead falls on the applicant to demonstrate there is a technical solution to address the issue. South West Water has responsibility for this aspect and their consultee response is set out in 5.1 above. SWW acknowledge the issue of the system’s current capacity and advise they have undertaken an evaluation which sets out the improvements necessary to accommodate the increased load placed on the network by the development. They recommend a condition to secure these improvements which is included in 15.1 below. Drainage & Foul Water – Conclusion

13.55 The NPPF advises that 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. Therefore if there is a technical issue which can be resolved or mitigated through additional works and moreover that the delivery of this can be secured via a planning condition, then the Council should look positively on this as a way of facilitating sustainable development.

13.56 As the statutory body with responsibility for foul drainage network in the area, SWW are best placed to advise the LPA on the impacts of the development on this network. As their view is that the scheme can proceed subject to a condition requiring delivery of the necessary network improvements, members can be satisfied that the statutory body has suitably investigated this matter and a technical solution is available. It is recommended that SWW’s suggested condition be included in any approval.

Affordable Housing

13.57 Policy HOUS1 of the Local Plan requires all new development to make contributions towards affordable housing (AH). The policy seeks that in most cases provision will be made on site. This would apply to this scheme. The level of contribution would be 35% of the proposed units, in this case totalling 12.6 units across the scheme. Policy HOUS1 seeks these to be provided in a tenure split of 70% social / affordable rent and a maximum of 30% intermediate affordable housing.

13.58 The substantial unmet need for affordable housing in the district set out in your Housing Enabling Team’s response to the application are noted. The provision of 12 units of affordable housing as part of the scheme would be a considerable benefit in addressing this ongoing need and is given significant weight in the balancing exercise set out in part 14 below. The applicant is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) and the submitted plans indicate an intention to substantially overprovide affordable housing with only 9 of the 36 properties being for sale on the open market. The remainder being for rent or shared ownership.

13.59 This would be a considerable additional benefit of the scheme. However, members should note that the Council can only secure an affordable housing contribution in line with its policy – i.e. 35%. Any provision over and above this would be at the applicants’ discretion and therefore only limited weight is attached to any AH provision over and above the 35% in the balancing exercise notwithstanding the considerable further benefit which could potentially accrue.

Affordable Housing – Conclusion

13.60 The applicants have not sought to contest the viability of the scheme to deliver a policy-compliant on-site affordable housing contribution and indeed are potentially looking to over-deliver affordable housing. The consultation exercise has not raised any significant issues indicating there may be extraordinary costs over and above the foul water capacity in developing the site which may impact on the scheme’s ability to deliver 35% affordable housing on site in line with Policy HOUS1. Therefore subject to completion of a s106 agreement to secure the AH provision as set out in the recommendation in 15.1 below, the development complies with Policy HOUS1.

Infrastructure Contributions

13.61 The Council has adopted a CIL-charging regime (see below) and in practice the majority of infrastructure contributions to mitigate the impact of new development will be secured via CIL. The adopted Regulation 123 list for West Dorset apportions the largest single proportion of the CIL contributions towards Education & Training Facilities. The next two largest apportionments are towards Transport and Culture & Leisure Facilities. Contributions are also made towards Flood Mitigation, Emergency Services, Green Infrastructure & Recreation, Healthcare, Poole Harbour Nutrient Management, Public Realm, Utilities and Waste Management.

13.62 Therefore, whilst the ability of the village’s infrastructure to accommodate the increased population following from the development is raised in a number of third party responses, contributions to mitigate this impact will be made as part of the CIL contributions. In particular, a sizable proportion of the CIL monies will go towards education provision and it is noted that DCC’s Obligations Manager is satisfied with this.

13.63 In order to secure any further developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of development, these must be in addition to matters not addressed through CIL in order to avoid double-charging the applicant. Under the Community infrastructure Levy regulations, any developer contributions proposed to be secured via a s106 agreement must meet the following tests and be; a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

13.64 The scheme includes proposals for off-site highway works to improve pedestrian linkages from the site to the rest of the village and highway safety outside the site. These are considered essential to facilitate pedestrian links from the development to the remainder of Mosterton to integrate the scheme without which the proposals would be unacceptable. These also deliver a benefit for existing residents in providing safer routes across the village.

13.65 The scheme provides for an extension to the community woodland as part of the layout but also includes communal open space for residents. This will also form part of the route from the village via the diverted public footpath to the community woodland. The open space is an integral aspect of the scheme, necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on the AONB. In addition it is considered necessary to ensure the development meets the requirements of Table 6.1 of the Local Plan which aims to provide access to a natural greenspace of at least 2ha in size within 1km of the area for large villages of 500+ population. Whilst the scheme can provide this as part of the layout, in order to secure the long-term benefit of this open space provision, it needs to be secured and managed 13.66 The justification for the proposed affordable housing contribution is set out in paragraphs 13.57 – 13.59 above.

Infrastructure Contributions – Conclusions

13.67 The possible need for additional developer contributions over and above those secured under CIL has been considered against the criteria in the adopted Local Plan. The proposed contributions set out in the recommendation in 15.1 below are site-specific issues raised by the nature of the development. The level of contribution sought relates to standards and policies in the adopted Local Plan to secure acceptable open space provision, safety for pedestrians and affordable housing to meet a substantial unmet need. Consequently, the proposed contributions are considered to be justified against the criteria in the CIL regulations.

Community infrastructure Levy

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

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.

14. Summary Balancing Exercise 14.1 Policy INT1 of the adopted Local Plan reinforces the presumption in favour of sustainable development within paragraph 14 of the NPPF. However, it also includes an additional requirement that where policies are out-of-date, regard will be had to the extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan.

14.2 The NPPF confirms that sustainable development has three dimensions; economic, social and environmental which it states are mutually dependent. In terms of the economic benefits of the scheme there would be short-term benefits during the construction stage. The scheme does not provide any long-term employment but would increase the numbers of the local population to support local services. This has both an economic and social benefit as this can potentially sustain local facilities as a wider benefit to the village as a whole. 14.3 The growth in the village’s population has the potential to benefit its vitality and viability. In the provision of affordable housing in a sustainable location, there is a substantial social benefit in helping to meet a considerable unmet need in the area. The possibility that the applicant may overprovide affordable housing is also noted. Irrespective of that, the scheme delivers a range of housing types and sizes and delivers a number of small single storey houses. The scheme thus caters to a range of needs and would have the potential to deliver a variety of occupants. CIL contributions will mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure.

14.4 On the environmental factors, the amendments have sought to address concerns expressed over the landscape impact. The scheme as presented incorporates open space to soften the transition between the new built development and the open countryside beyond. Built development relates well to the existing village fringe and is not considered to result in an incongruous built incursion into the AONB. Similarly, the changes sought to the scheme now deliver a scheme with a sympathetic variety of designs drawing on the simple cottage character of traditional dwellings within the centre rather than being driven specifically by the character of the immediately adjacent properties. This is considered to be a legitimate approach and delivers a variety of well-designed properties in suitable materials complying with the Council’s environmental policies.

14.5 The scheme has taken account of the relationship with neighbouring properties and will comply with Policy ENV16. The scheme incorporates highway works to facilitate pedestrian access from the site to the remainder of the village. The Highways Authority are satisfied that the scheme is compatible with highway safety and there is capacity within the network to accommodate the development. The Council is advised there are workable solutions to the surface and foul water issues.

14.6 Overall the assessment of the three dimensions of sustainable development is that the impacts are either positive or neutral. However there remains a conflict with Policy SUS2 as the site lies outside of the DDB for Mosterton, but currently this policy is out-of-date due to the Council’s Housing Land Supply. So in assessing the scheme against Policy INT1, the Council would need to assess the proposals against the strategic objectives (SO) in the plan.

14.7 Not all of the SO are directly applicable to the scheme before members. Of the relevant objectives these include meeting local housing needs for all as far as is possible and the scheme would be compliant with this in its provision of affordable housing and its housing mix. It would contribute towards supporting sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities by developing in a sustainable location. It will comply with protecting and enhancing the outstanding natural and built environment, including its landscape, biodiversity and geodiversity, and the local distinctiveness of places within the area. The plan notes this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are particularly sensitive to change such as the AONB.

14.8 With regards to reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, both by minimising the potential impacts and by adapting to those that are inevitable, the site lies outside of the area of highest flood risk. In addition, the drainage proposals result in a betterment to surface water drainage run-off from the site which ultimately drains to the River Axe. The scheme is also considered to achieve high quality and sustainability in design, reflecting the local character and distinctiveness of the area.

14.9 The final applicable objective is to provide greater opportunities to reduce car use; improve safety; ensure convenient and appropriate public transport services; and seek greater network efficiency for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. In this respect the scheme is only partly successful. By developing in a sustainable location, occupiers will have the opportunity to access local facilities by other means than driving and the proposals seek to facilitate pedestrian access to the village. However, it is accepted that the development would likely increase out-commuting as it is unlikely that employment needs would be met in Mosterton and it is unlikely that public transport would provide a suitable alternative for many residents to reach work.

14.10 This would have to be a negative aspect of the scheme. Officers have given due consideration to this, bearing in mind the number of units involved and therefore the likely extent of additional commuting which may result. In this particular instance, this negative aspect is considered to be noticeably outweighed by the positives of the scheme and therefore the scheme represents sustainable development and complies with Policy INT1. ON this basis the scheme is recommended for approval.

15. Recommendation 15.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure; · 35% of the units as affordable housing · Provision and maintenance of the proposed open space · Applicant to fully fund a Traffic Management / calming scheme for the Broadwindsor Road (including the Traffic Regulation Order for the repositioning of the speed limit) and before the occupation of the first dwelling on the site and then APPROVE subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 15.1 below.

i. Plans list ii. Implement within 3 years

HIGHWAYS

iii. Before the development is occupied the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on Drawing Number 3679/PL/02 Rev L must be constructed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

REASON: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site. FOUL DRAINAGE iv. No development above damp proof course shall take place until either the Owner has submitted an application to the relevant Sewerage Undertaker for a public foul sewer requisition under s98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (which shall include the provision of public sewerage improvement works identified as necessary) or the Local Planning Authority has given written approval to the proposed foul water drainage details.

No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied or brought into use and there shall be no discharge to the public foul sewerage network, unless and until the approved scheme of improvement works identified by the Sewerage Undertaker as necessary to accommodate the discharge of foul sewage from the Development have been implemented. The foul water facilities shall thereafter be retained and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

SURFACE WATER v. No construction works on any dwelling hereby approved shall take place until a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, and including clarification of how surface water is to be attenuated and discharged, 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, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity. vi. No construction works on any dwelling hereby approved 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. CONTAMINATED LAND vii. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme shall be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Should any contamination be found requiring remediation, a remediation scheme should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out in its entirety. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be produced to the Local Planning Authority within three months.

REASON: In the interests of ensuring there is no unacceptable risk to occupiers of the development in accordance with Policy ENV9 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).

MATERIALS viii. Prior to the commencement of development on any dwelling hereby approved, full details and/or samples of all external facing materials for that dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall proceed in strict accordance with the materials as have been agreed.

REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).

FINISHED FLOOR LEVELS ix. No development shall commence on any dwelling hereby approved 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 the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012). BOUNDARY TREATMENTS x. The boundary treatments to the southern boundary adjoining the neighbouring properties in Windsor Close and Mosterton Cross as set out on the approved plan DRWG. NO. 3679/PL/02 REV. L shall be installed in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the scheme. The boundary treatments to serve each individual dwelling shall be completed in full prior to the first occupation of the dwelling to which they relate. The boundary treatments shall thereafter be retained.

REASON: In the interests of the privacy of the approved and neighbouring dwellings in accordance with the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) Policy ENV16 and the advice in the NPPF (2012).

LANDSCAPING xi. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the landscaping details set out on the approved plans Drwg. No. 3679/200 REV F & 3679/201 REV F shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Planting Schedule 3679/290 REV F during the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of any of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner.

Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The landscaping shall thereafter be retained.

REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the location in accordance with Policy ENV10 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).

BIODIVERSITY xii. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan from David Leach dated 16 January 2015 and this shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In order to protect the landscape qualities of the area and to safeguard and enhance the ecological value of the site in accordance with Policy ENV2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012). HARD SURFACING xiii. No works on any dwelling hereby approved shall take place prior to the submission of details of the hard surfacing treatments for the parking courts, parking spaces and pathways to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the areas are first brought into use and shall thereafter be retained.

REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the location in accordance with Policy ENV10 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).

INFORMATIVE NOTE:- Community Infrastructure Levy This development constitutes Community Infrastructure Levy 'CIL' liable development. CIL is a mandatory financial charge on development and you will be notified of the amount of CIL being charged on this development in a CIL Liability Notice. To avoid additional financial penalties it is important that you notify us of the date you plan to commence development before any work takes place and follow the correct CIL payment procedure.

INFORMATIVE NOTE:- 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.

INFORMATIVE NOTE:- All works offering an obstruction to flow within a channel with the status of Ordinary Watercourse are likely to require prior Land Drainage Consent (LDC) from Dorset County Council, as relevant Lead Local Flood Authority, in accordance with s23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. The requirement for such LDC is independent of planning permission.