(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Dorset Council

Home , Cattistock, River Asker, Uploders

Public Document Pack

Western and Southern Area Planning Committee Date: Thursday, 8 October 2020 Time: 10.00 am Venue: MS Team Live Event This meeting will be held remotely as an MS Teams Live Event [see links below] Membership: (Quorum 6) Mike Barron, Dave Bolwell, Kelvin Clayton, Susan Cocking, Jean Dunseith, Nick Ireland, Louie O'Leary, Bill Pipe (Vice-Chairman), David Shortell (Chairman), Sarah Williams, Kate Wheller and John Worth

Chief Executive: Matt Prosser, South Walks House, South Walks Road, Dorchester, Dorset DT1 1UZ (Sat Nav DT1 1EE)

For more information about this agenda please contact Denise Hunt 01305 224878 - [email protected]

For easy access to the Council agendas and minutes download the free public app Mod.gov for use on your iPad, Android and Windows tablet. Once downloaded select Dorset Council.

Members of the public are invited to access this meeting with the exception of any items listed in the exempt part of this agenda.

This meeting will be held remotely as an MS Teams Live Event [see links below]

Western and Southern Area Planning Committee – Link to observe meeting at 10am

Western and Southern Area Planning Committee – Link to observe meeting at 2pm

Members of the public are invited to make written representations provided that they are submitted to the Democratic Services Officer no later than 8.30am on Tuesday 6 October 2020. This must include your name, together with a summary of your comments and contain no more than 450 words.

If a councillor who is not on the Planning Committee wishes to address the committee, they will be allowed 3 minutes to do so and will be invited to speak before the applicant or their representative provided that they have notified the Democratic Services Officer by 8.30am on Tuesday 6 October 2020. Please note that if you submit a representation to be read out on your behalf at the committee meeting, your name and written submission will be published as part of the minutes of the meeting.

Please refer to the guide to public participation at committee meetings for general information about speaking at meetings Guidance to Public Speaking at a Planning Committee and specifically the "Covid-19 Pandemic – Addendum to the Guide to Public Speaking Protocol for Planning Committee meetings - effective from 20 July 2020" included as part of this agenda (see agenda item 4 - Public Participation).

Using social media at virtual meetings Anyone can use social media such as tweeting and blogging to report the meeting when it is open to the public. A G E N D A

Page No.

1 APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence

2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive any declarations of interest

3 MINUTES 7 - 20

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2020.

4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 21 - 22

To receive questions or statements on the business of the committee from town and parish councils and members of the public.

Public speaking has been suspended for virtual committee meetings during the Covid-19 crisis and public participation will be dealt with through written submissions only.

Members of the public who live, work or represent an organisation within the Dorset Council area, may submit up to two questions or a statement of up to a maximum of 450 words. All submissions must be sent electronically to [email protected] by the deadline set out below. When submitting a question please indicate who the question is for and include your name, address and contact details. Questions and statements received in line with the council’s rules for public participation will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

Questions will be read out by an officer of the council and a response given by the appropriate Portfolio Holder or officer at the meeting. All questions, statements and responses will be published in full within the minutes of the meeting. The deadline for submission of the full text of a question or statement is 8.30am on Tuesday 6 October 2020.

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To consider the applications listed below for planning permission a WP/19/00480/OUT - Marsh Road Garage, Marsh Road, 23 - 46 Weymouth, DT4 8JD Demolish existing buildings and erect 20 flats with parking and associated works (Outline).

b WD/D/20/000597 - Land West of, 5 Chapel Lane, Maiden 47 - 60 Newton Demolish existing outbuildings and erect 2 three bedroom detached houses with parking.

c WD/D/19/001514 - West Coombe, Smishops Lane, Loders, 61 - 78 Bridport DT6 3SA Demolish agricultural barn and erect detached dwelling and garage.

d WP/20/00361/OBL - Land South of Louviers Road, 79 - 84 Weymouth Modification of planning obligations on Section 106 Agreement dated 20th December 2018 (original planning approval WP/17/00832/FUL).

COMMITTEE BREAKS FOR LUNCH - 1.00PM TO 2.00PM

e Report to Committee to Modify a Planning Permission 85 - 90 under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the planning consent WP/14/00330/OUT, WP/16/00388/VOC and WP/19/00184/VOC

Redundant Buildings at, Bumpers Lane, Portland DT5 1HY.

6 UPDATE REPORT - POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION, 91 - 168 HOMESTEAD FARM, MAIN STREET, BOTHENHAMPTON, BRIDPORT, DT6 4BJ Demolition of original farmhouse and erection of a dwelling not in accordance with planning approval WD/D/17/002888 as amended via the approved non material amendment approvals WD/D/19/000355/NMA and WD/D/19/000624/NMA.

7 WP/20/00417/TEL - TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST SITE, 169 - 188 WEYMOUTH WAY, RADIPOLE, WEYMOUTH Installation of 18m high monopole supporting 6no. antennas and 3no equipment cabinets and ancillary development. 8 APPEAL DECISIONS 189 - 190 To inform members of notified appeals and appeal decisions and take them into account as a material consideration in the Area Planning Committee's future decisions.

9 URGENT ITEMS To consider any items of business which the Chairman has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be recorded in the minutes. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3

DORSET COUNCIL - WESTERN AND SOUTHERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 2020

Present: Cllrs Mike Barron, Dave Bolwell, Kelvin Clayton, Susan Cocking, Jean Dunseith, Nick Ireland, Louie O'Leary, David Shortell (Chairman), Sarah Williams, Kate Wheller and John Worth.

Also present: Cllr David Walsh, Portfolio Holder for Planning

Officers present (for all or part of the meeting): Ann Collins (Area Manager – Western and Southern Team), Philip Crowther (Legal Business Partner - Regulatory), Lindsay Flello (Planning Officer), Colin Graham (Engineer (Development Liaison) Highways), Jo Riley (Senior Planning Officer), Allison Sharpe (Business Support Officer), Emma Telford (Senior Planning Officer) and Denise Hunt (Democratic Services Officer).

1. Apologies

An apology for absence was received from Cllr Bill Pipe.

2. Declarations of Interest

The following declarations were made at the meeting:-

Councillor Kate Wheller declared a non-pecuniary interest in Application WD/D/20/01009 - Harbourmaster Compound, Harbourmaster's Yard, Ozone Terrace, Lyme Regis as she was Chairman of the Harbours Committee at the time the application was made. She confirmed that she had not been involved with or predetermined this application.

Councillor Kate Wheller also declared that she had been a member of the former Weymouth & Portland Borough Council Planning Committee when Application WP/20/00306/OBL - Redundant Buildings, Broadcroft, Quarry, Bumpers Lane, Portland, DT5 1HY Portland had been discussed and that she would consider the application with an open mind.

Councillor Louie O'Leary declared an interest in Application WD/D/20/01009 - Harbourmaster Compound, Harbourmaster's Yard, Ozone Terrace, Lyme Regis as a member of the Harbours Committee. He confirmed that he had no prior involvement with this application.

Councillor Sarah Williams declared an interest in Application WD/D/20/01009 - Harbourmaster Compound, Harbourmaster's Yard, Ozone Terrace, Lyme Regis as a member of the Harbours Committee. She confirmed that she had not been involved with or predetermined this application.

Page 7 Councillor Susan Cocking declared that she had objected to Application WP/20/00306/OBL - Redundant Buildings, Broadcroft, Quarry, Bumpers Lane, Portland, DT5 1HY Portland when it was considered by Portland Town Council Planning Committee and had therefore predetermined the application. She would therefore not take part in the debate or vote on this application.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meetings held on 12 and 13 August 2020 were confirmed and signed subject to the deletion of an apology by Councillor Louie O'Leary at the meeting on 12 August 2020. Councillor O'Leary confirmed that he had been present at the start of the meeting, but had to leave due to technical difficulties.

4. Public Participation

Representations by the public to the Committee on individual planning applications are detailed below. There were no questions, petitions or deputations received on other items on this occasion.

5. Planning Applications

Members considered written reports submitted on planning applications as set out below.

6. WD/D/20/01009 - Harbourmaster Compound, Harbourmaster's Yard, Ozone Terrace, Lyme Regis

The Committee considered a Dorset Council application for the erection of a Harbourmaster and fisherman's store.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application that included a location plan, site plan, aerial photo and photos of the yard in relation to the surrounding buildings as well as separation from the properties in Ozone Terrace by the road.

The proposed building was just inside the Conservation Area boundary that included Ozone Terrace. Comments had been received from the Conservation Officer in relation to the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Materials had been changed to natural slate, cedarwood boarding, Portland stone plinth, timber side doors and metal roller shutter doors in order to house equipment such as the JCB.

The key planning points were highlighted including:-

 within DDB  need for Harbour Master - economy  support for fisherman and leisure  visual impact

2 Page 8  impact on listed building and Conservation Area  neighbouring amenity

It was considered that the application was in the public interest as providing storage for the Harbour Master, fishermen and visitors.

There were no impacts on neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of outlook or light and the Committee was reminded that protection of views towards the harbour was not a material planning consideration.

Three written representations were received in objection to the application that were read out at the meeting and are attached as an appendix to these minutes.

In response to the comments, the Senior Planning Officer stated that no objection had been received from the Town Council and that locating the store on limited nearby land in the ownership of the Harbour Authority could be more prominent and harmful to that proposed. Furthermore, there was separation of the proposed building (which would be lower in height) from Ozone Terrace by the gardens of the dwellings, a brick wall, public toilets and electricity sub-station.

The Highways Officer outlined the reasons why there had been no objection on highways grounds, highlighting that pedestrians already used Ozone Terrace, a public right of way, due to the presence of the public toilets in the vicinity.

Prior to commencement of the debate by the Committee, Councillor David Shortell proposed that Councillor Louie O'Leary be elected as Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the meeting which was seconded by Councillor Jean Dunseith.

Decision: That Councillor Louie O'Leary be elected as Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.

Returning to the debate, Councillor Kelvin Clayton highlighted the concerns of the Conservation Officer set against the need for the building. He asked whether a full options appraisal had been undertaken for alternative sites and the extent to which those sites been appraised.

Members were informed that the report relied upon additional information that the applicant had provided in response to comments by the Conservation Officer which essentially prohibited alternative sites on the grounds of unsuitability and the costs involved. It seemed logical to put a store on a site that was ordinarily used for storage purposes as being the most cost effective and practical option.

Other members of the committee were mindful that the right facilities were needed for a commercial working harbour to be viable and for expensive equipment to be stored and that this was an available site in the Dorset Council's ownership.

3 Page 9 A question was also asked in relation to noise, but it was felt that an indoor storage facility would be quieter.

Proposed by Councillor Kate Wheller, seconded by Councillor John Worth.

Decision That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

Councillors Jean Dunseith and Nick Ireland did not take part in the vote on this application as they had been unable to listen to the whole of the officer presentation of the application due to technical difficulties.

7. WD/D/19/001514 - West Combe, Smishops Lane, Loders, Bridport, DT6 3SA

This application was deferred.

8. WD/D/20/001326 - Brewery Bridge, Skilling Hill Road, Bridport

The Committee considered a Listed Building application by Dorset Council for steelwork repairs and maintenance painting, provision of anti-bird perching coils and associated works to Brewery Bridge, a Grade II listed structure.

Members were shown a number of photos of the bridge as well as a plan of the listed brewery buildings surrounding the bridge which was outside the Conservation Area.

The Committee was informed that work had already commenced meaning that some of the conditions outlined in the report were no longer relevant. The updated conditions had been included in an update sheet circulated to members before the meeting and were also included as part of the presentation.

Proposed by Councillor Sarah Williams, seconded by Councillor Kate Wheller.

Decision: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

9. WP/20/00307/ADV - Victoria Square Roundabout, Portland

The Committee considered a retrospective application by Dorset Council for the display of a non-illuminated sign on the Victoria Square Roundabout.

Members were informed the location was just outside the Conservation Area and that Portland Town Council had objected on the grounds that it cluttered the roundabout, causing distraction and impeding ground works.

4 Page 10 It was confirmed that the proposal was acceptable in terms of highways safety and did not have cumulative negative impact on the area due to the large size of the roundabout.

A written representation was received in support of the application that was read out at the meeting and is attached as an appendix to these minutes.

Proposed by Councillor Susan Cocking, seconded by Councillor Nick Ireland.

Decision: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

10. WP/20/00306/OBL - Redundant Buildings, Broadcroft Quarry, Bumpers Lane, Portland, DT5 1HY

Councillor Susan Cocking did not take part in the debate and vote on this application.

The Committee considered an application for the modification of planning obligations in the Section 106 Agreement dated 24 June 2015 on original planning approval WP/14/00330/OUT.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application, advising that the development had commenced with some dwellings already being marketed on the site.

The Section 106 Agreement required 25% as affordable housing which amounted to 17.75 affordable units and this application sought to remove that obligation due to some abnormal costs not anticipated in relation to contaminated soil and asbestos remediation work that has already been incurred. The District Valuer Service had independently assessed the viability of the scheme and had also agreed that it was not financially viable.

Although the scheme did not provide affordable homes, it provided a mix of properties that included smaller units.

The Committee expressed concern and a degree of disbelief that professional builders had been surprised by unexpected costs on the site and that allowances should have been made for this in the original proposal. They considered that the open market value of the properties was not affordable when taking into account the average salary of people living in the area.

Councillor Kate Wheller proposed that the application be refused on the basis that contaminated soils could have been predicted by the developer and that the open market value prices listed in the table were not affordable given salaries of those living on Portland. Councillor Kelvin Clayton seconded the proposal.

The Solicitor stated that if the application was refused the applicant had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State through the Planning Inspectorate with the usual cost consequences if the reasons for refusal were not justified.

5 Page 11 He advised members that the report from the District Valuer Service, which was independent from both the developer and Council, had reached a conclusion on viability.

The consideration should be that this proposal delivered housing, including a number of units towards the lower end of market housing and that there should be sound reasons for refusing this application.

A vote was taken to refuse the application which was lost.

Councillor John Worth proposed that the application be approved which was seconded by Councillor David Shortell.

Decision: That authority be delegated to the nominated officer to modify the S106 agreement dated 24 June 2015, as varied by deeds of modification dated 28 November 2016 to:

- Remove affordable housing obligations

Councillor Jean Dunseith did not vote on this application as she had been unable to listen to the whole of the officer's presentation due to technical difficulties.

11. Urgent items

There were no urgent items.

12. Update Sheet

Application Ref. Address Agenda ref. Page no.

WD/D/20/001009 Harbour Masers Open 5a 49-58 compound, Harbour Masers Yard, Ozone Terrace, Lyme Regis Update(s): It has been brought to the attention of the case officer that the reference number at the top of the report is incorrect. It should read WD/D/20/01009.

WD/D/20/001326 BREWERY BRIDGE, SKILLING 5c 77-84 HILL ROAD, BRIDPORT Update(s): It has been brought to the attention of the case officer that the proposed work has in fact been started, therefore some of the recommended planning conditions are now not relevant, therefore it is recommended that the proposed conditions are as follows;

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan, Drawing Number BS0035_606_1, received 03rd June 2020 Surface Preparation & Painting, Drawing Number BS0035_609, received 03rd June 2020 6 Page 12 Steelwork repairs (Listed Building Consent), Drawing Number BS0035_608, received 03rd June 2020.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2. The historic metal balustrading shall be painted using the following colours; Green (BS4800 14 C 39) for the Girders Black (BS4800 00 E 53) for the Parapets Red (BS4800 04 E 53) for the Parapet roundels

REASON: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset

3. All top coat paint shall be of a semi-gloss or matt finish.

REASON: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset.

4. The proposed Anti-bird perching coils hereby approved shall in appearance accord with those shown in the photographs submitted via email dated 7th September 2020 unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset.

Duration of meeting: 10.00 am - 12.15 pm

Chairman

7 Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/20/000253

APPLICATION SITE: Harbour Masters Open Compound, Harbourmasters Yard, Ozone terrace, Lyme Regis

PROPOSAL: Erection of Harbourmaster and Fishermans Store

DECISION: Grant permission subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan, site plan, floor plan, elevation 3926-01E Section Plan/comparison plan 3926-02C

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. No development beyond foundation level shall be commenced until details or samples of all external facing materials for the wall(s) and roof(s) shall have been 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 such materials as have been agreed.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development in the Conservation Area.

4. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority and an investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with requirements of BS10175.

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

REASON: To ensure risks from contamination are minimised.

Page 15 5. The building hereby approved shall be used for Harbour Master storage/ WC and fisherman’s store only and for no other storage purpose (including any other use in Class B of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order).

REASON: The Council considers an unrestricted Class B use may not be compatible with the living conditions of surrounding residential properties.

Page 16 APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/20/001326

APPLICATION SITE: Brewery Bridge, Skilling Hill Road, Bridport

PROPOSAL: Steelwork repairs and maintenance painting, provision of anti bird perching coils and associated works.

DECISION: Approve subject to the following conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan, Drawing Number BS0035_606_1, received 03rd June 2020 Surface Preparation & Painting, Drawing Number BS0035_609, received 03rd June 2020 Steelwork repairs (Listed Building Consent), Drawing Number BS0035_608, received 03rd June 2020.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

REASON: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset

3. All top coat paint shall be of a semi-gloss or matt finish.

REASON: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset.

Page 17 APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/20/00307/ADV

APPLICATION SITE: Victoria Square Roundabout, Portland

PROPOSAL: Display of non-illuminated sign (retrospective).

DECISION: Grant subject to the following conditions:-

1. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

2. Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

3. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

4. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan, received 18th May 2020 Proposed Signage, Drawing Number SK001, received 17th June 2020

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Page 18 APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/20/00306/OBL

APPLICATION SITE: Redundant Buildings, Broadcroft Quarry, Bumpers Lane, Portland DT5 1HY

PROPOSAL: Modification of planning obligations on Section 106 Agreement dated 24thJune 2015 (original planning approval WP/14/00330/OUT).

DECISION: Delegate authority to the nominated officer to modify the S106 agreement dated 24th June 2015, as varied by deeds of modification dated 28 November 2016 to:

- Remove affordable housing obligations

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4

Dorset Council

Covid-10 Pandemic – Addendum to the Guide to Public Speaking Protocol for Planning Committee meetings – effective from xx July 2020

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the council has had to put in place measures to enable the council’s decision making processes to continue whilst keeping safe members of the public, councillors and council staff in accordance with the Government’s guidance on social distancing by applying new regulations for holding committee meetings from remote locations.

The following procedures will apply to planning committee meetings until further notice, replacing where appropriate the relevant sections of the Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committees:

1. While planning committee meetings are held remotely during the Coronavirus outbreak public participation will take the form of written statements (and not public speaking) to the committee.

2. If you wish to make a written statement is must be no more than 450 words with no attached documents and be sent to the Democratic Services Team by 8.30am two working days prior to the date of the committee – i.e. for a committee meeting on a Wednesday written statements must be received by 8.30am on the Monday. The deadline date and the email contact details of the relevant democratic services officer can be found on the front page of the committee agenda. The agendas for each meeting can be found on the Dorset Council website https://moderngov.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/mgListCommittees.aspx?bcr=1

3. During this period the council can only accept written statements via email and you should continue to bear in mind the guidance in the public speaking guide when preparing your representation.

4. The first three statements received from members of the public for and against the application (maximum six in total) will be read out together with any statement from the town and parish council, by an officer (but not the case officer), after the case officer has presented their report and before the application is debated by members of the Committee. It may be that not all of your statement will be read out if the same point has been made by another statement and already read to the Committee. This is to align with the pre-Covid-19 protocol which limited public speaking to 15 minutes per item, although the Chairman of the Committee will retain discretion over this time period as she/he sees fit. All statements received will be circulated to the Committee members before the meeting.

5. This addendum applies to members of public (whether objecting or supporting an application, town and parish councils, planning agents and applicants.

6. Councillors who are not on the Planning Committee may also address the Committee for up to 3 minutes by speaking to the Committee (rather than submitting a written statement). They need to inform Democratic Services of their wish to speak at the meeting two working days before the meeting.

Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5a

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/19/00480/OUT

APPLICATION SITE: Marsh Road Garage, Marsh Road, Weymouth DT4 8JD

PROPOSAL: Demolish existing buildings and erect 20no. flats with parking and associated works (Outline)

APPLICANT: Taylor Grey Homes

CASE OFFICER: Emma Telford

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr R Hope & Cllr G Taylor

Taking account of representations made during the Scheme of Delegation consultation with Members, the Head of Service considers that under the provisions of Dorset Council’s constitution this application should be determined by the Area Planning Committee.

1.0 Summary of Recommendation:

Recommendation A:

Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to grant, subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure an off-site affordable housing contribution of £5,772 and conditions.

Recommendation B:

Refuse permission for the reasons set out below if the legal agreement is not completed within 6 months of the committee resolution or such extended time as agreed by the head of planning:

1. In the absence of a satisfactory completed Section 106 agreement the scheme fails to ensure provision of a financial contribution for the off-site provision of affordable housing. Hence the scheme is contrary to policy HOUS 1 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015.

2.0 Reason for the recommendation:

 Absence of 5 year land supply  The location is within the defined development boundary and is considered to be sustainable.  Nothing to suggest at outline stage that the proposal would result in adverse impacts on neighbours.

Page 23  It is considered that a development could be achieved that would not be unduly prominent in terms of the local character.  There are no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this application.

3.0 Key planning issues

Issue Conclusion Principle of development Located within the DDB. Acceptable in principle.

Residential Amenity Nothing to suggest at this outline stage that the proposal would result in adverse impacts on neighbours. Visual Amenity Development could be achieved that would not unduly prominent in terms of the local character.

Highway Safety Highways raised no objections.

Flooding & Drainage No objections from the Environment Agency and Flood Risk Management Team subject to conditions.

Contamination Standard contaminated land condition required.

Affordable Housing Financial contribution of £5,772 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing.

Community Infrastructure CIL liable. Levy

4.0 Description of Site

4.1 The application site, Marsh Road Garage is located to the west of Marsh Road. The site is occupied by one large mass of a brick built building dominated by roller- shutters positioned adjacent to the pavement of Marsh Road. To the west (rear) of the site is mature vegetation and the Rodwell Trail. To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Marsh Road is the Asda supermarket and multi-storey car park. To the north of the site along the same side of Marsh Road as the application site is a long row of terraced properties. South-east of the application site at the junction of Marsh Road and Weston Road lies a three storey block of flats.

4.2 The application site is located within the defined development boundary for Weymouth.

5.0 Description of Proposal

5.1 The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing building on the site and the erection of 20. flats and parking. The applicant is seeking outline permission with all matters reserved. Indicative plans have been submitted which show how the proposed flats could be accommodated on the site. The indicative

Page 24 plans show a two and a half storey development with flats in the roof space with parking to the rear and side of the building.

6.0 Relevant Planning History

6.1 No relevant planning history.

7.0 Relevant Constraints

Within defined development boundary Possible contamination – current use Risk of Surface Water Flooding

8.0 Consultations

8.1 Natural England – Natural England has no comments to make on this application.

8.2 Urban Design Officer - The residential uses in the area are characterised by small scale terraced properties which are somewhat dwarfed by the adjacent ASDA supermarket. There is also a more modern apartment block on the corner of Marsh Road and Weston Road which is out of keeping with the dominant building form in the area.

While the application is only outline, it does confirm density and therefore the number of units. These 1 bed units fall below the space standards recommended for a 1bed dwelling (50m2). Whilst there may be a demand for small single occupancy flats (recommended space standard of 39m2) these should form part of a mix of unit sizes rather than to take up the entire allocation of unit types. With the current size of units the scheme is contrary to policy ENV12 The Design and Positioning of Buildings ‘new housing should meet and where possible exceed appropriate minimum space standards.’

The proposed bulk of the scheme is out of character with the terraced housing that dominates the residential buildings in the area. It is recognised though that due to the size of the car park opposite, some additional scale can be accommodated on the site. However, it is considered that the indicative plans currently represent an over development of the site and the overall scale of the scheme should be reduced to ensure that it is not overbearing on the neighbouring terraced housing. Care should also be taken to ensure that the architectural style does not emphasize its bulk and particular attention should be paid to the façade treatment – for example, the use of a painted brick or render finish would be more in keeping with the character of the area.

Little amenity space is provided for the residents and although the space provided probably just meets the 20% requirement set out in policy HOUS4 it is not well laid out and is unlikely to provide a usable space for residents. Any reserved matters

Page 25 application should seek to improve the layout of this amenity area to ensure that it is a space that can be well used by residents.

14 parking spaces are proposed and while this accords with the Dorset Residential Car Parking Survey, it must be noted that nearby roads are already at capacity in terms of on street parking, a situation that will be exacerbated by any additional demands as a result of this scheme. Unallocated spaces are also contrary to the guidance provided in the Dorset Residential Car Parking Survey which states that ‘where a layout with high unallocated provision is proposed, the parking must be designed in such a way that it is clearly available for use by all. Describing car parking spaces as unallocated in small parking courtyards is, for instance, unlikely to be acceptable as the spaces would effectively become allocated to certain properties regardless of their designation.’ Highways will take a view on this matter.

8.3 Dorset Waste Partnership – There is a concern about the positioning of the bin storage and the available access to it. There are no access traffic plans and a consideration reverse manoeuvre is required or an extended time stopped on Marsh Road to walks the bins to the highway.

Collection vehicle dimensions are available and there are guidance notes regarding bin stores or compounds available for development from the DWP.

8.4 Weymouth Town Council – The Council has no objections to this proposal but has concerns regarding parking, mix of properties and density.

8.5 Highways – No objection subject to reserved matters and consideration of the following points:

1. Whilst the location is very sustainable it is noted that not every unit even has an off-street parking space and that the impact of this could be significantly reduced by creating a further 3 off-street parking spaces along the north boundary by reducing or moving the landscaping area which are of questionable benefit in this situation.

2. The existing proliferation of vehicular crossings shall be expunged and reinstated to a specification (raised footway with full height 125mm kerb) which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. Whilst the secure sheltered cycle storage is both necessary and welcome surely placing the door on the west elevation would reduce the risk of damage to any vehicle occupying parking spaces No. 5.

4. Cut off drainage to prevent surface water being discharged from the site onto the highway.

Page 26 8.6 Housing Enabling Team – There are currently over 1700 households on the Weymouth and Portland Housing Register. This demonstrates that there is a high level of housing need in the Weymouth and Portland area. The greatest demand is for smaller homes.

There is a high level of housing need in the borough of Weymouth and Portland which this proposal would assist in meeting. In exceptional situations where affordable on site contribution cannot be offered then a financial contribution towards affordable housing can be considered. As a scheme providing 20 apartments it is expected that, in order to comply with HOUS 1, 35% of the homes development on this site should be affordable and secured by a S106 agreement.

8.7 Landscape Officer – This application is for the demolition of an existing 1.5 storey garage building and erection of a single storey block of flats. The site is located between an elevated section of the Rodway Trail and the ASDA multi-storey car park. There are rows of C18 terraced houses immediately to the north and south of the application site and Spinnaker House, a 4 storey block of flats, is located to the south-east.

I do not anticipate that the proposed scheme will result in any significant impacts on landscape character or visual amenity to any sensitive visual receptors.

8.8 Planning Obligations Manager – On the understanding that the market housing will be CIL liable I have no comments from this perspective.

8.9 Technical Services – Unless there were plans to dig into the embankment I would not necessarily have concerns. However I don’t doubt that there might be some localised areas where the bank is less stable than other places. I would suggest that any proposed development would have to consider the existing ground stability and measures that might be required to ensure the site remains stable.

You might want to also consider consulting the EA as the site is within an area that the SFRA indicates as being in the predicted 2126 1in200 year tidal flood extent – FZ3.

8.10 Environment Agency – In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we object to this application and recommend that planning permission is refused.

The submitted FRA does not comply with the requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments, as set out in paragraphs 30 to 32 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change section of the planning practice guidance. The FRA does not therefore adequately assess the flood risks posed by the development. In particular, the FRA fails consider how a range of flooding events (including extreme events) will affect people and property, and take the impacts of climate change into account.

Page 27 The FRA includes details of the current predicted tidal flood level, but does not include any reference to the possible future impact of climate change (net sea level rise), hence does not include consideration of flood risk at the site for the lifetime of the development. These risks have been identified in your Authority’s Flood Risk Management Strategy and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2. This would put this development within future flood zone 3 with significant flood depths at the site.

To overcome our objection, the applicant should submit a revised FRA which addresses the points highlighted above.

If this cannot be achieved, we are likely to maintain our objection. Please consult us on any revised FRA submitted and we will respond within 21 days of receiving it.

We note in the FRA the proposed finished floor levels are between 1.71 and 2.0 mAOD. Under our Local Flood Risk Standing Advice finished floor levels of new residential development in the identified Town centre at future tidal flood risk should be set a minimum of 600mm above the 2035 still water tidal flood level of 2.4mAOD to allow for delivery of the defences and other uncertainties.

8.11 Wessex Water – There are historic incidents of sewer flooding in the local area and Wessex Water has undertaken a major scheme of improvement works to alleviate foul sewer flooding. A connection to the 225mm public combined sewer in Marsh Road can be agreed for predicted foul flows from this development. Existing foul connections can be utilised for foul flows subject to satisfactory size and condition. An indirect connection via an existing manhole will require building control approval in consultation with Wessex Water.

Surface water runoff must be disposed of in accordance with the SuDS Hierarchy and NPPF Guidelines. A surface water connection to the 225mm public combined sewer in Marsh Road will only be considered where other methods in the hierarchy are proven not viable. Restricted discharge rates will apply;

As this is a brownfield site, Wessex Water will require evidence of an existing surface water connection to the public network, with details of existing discharge rates compared against proposed, and a minimum 30% betterment upon redevelopment. If previous surface water connection is not proven, then greenfield runoff rates + an allowance for climate change will apply.

8.12 Flood Risk Management Team – Whilst the current application for Outline permission is supported by site specific documents, the documents do not provide sufficient assessment of the prevailing risk, outline of the existing drainage arrangements or clarification of the proposed management of surface water runoff, as derived from the redeveloped site.

Page 28 Accordingly, we (DC/FRM) recommend that a precautionary approach be adopted and request that a (Holding) Objection be applied to this proposal, pending the supply of further and substantiated details. We also wish to highlight the (potential) requirement for a Sequential Test in respect of this proposed (re)development and formation of residential units, given the severe risk of (surface water) flooding that has been identified.

8.13 In response to concerns raised, amended information was submitted including an amended Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy and the following further comments were made.

8.14 Weymouth Town Council – The Council objects subject to resolution of the Environment Agency’s concerns regarding flood risk and of the concerns regarding impact on Rodwell Trail.

8.15 Housing Enabling Team – There are currently over 1800 households on the Housing Register requiring accommodation in the Weymouth and Portland area. This demonstrates that there is a high level of housing need across the area.

In addition, the high level of recorded housing need indicates that a range of dwelling sizes is required.

Subsequently the applicant has submitted a viability assessment which concludes that the development will not generate sufficient surplus and that there is no likelihood of affordable housing being provided on this site. The viability of this site needs to be independently verified.

8.16 Environment Agency - We can withdraw our objection and have the following advice. Further to submission of the updated Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by RMA Environmental, Issue 2 dated 30th January 2020) we comment as follows: The site lies within the area defined under the Local Flood Risk Standing Advice (2018) as the Weymouth Town Centre Boundary and within future Flood Zone 3 with the predicted impact of climate change in tidal flood risk.

The FRA has been updated to contain an understanding of the Weymouth Flood Risk Strategy, a more comprehensive assessment of tidal flood risk including the most recent (2020) climate change requirements over the lifetime of the development. The FRA also sets out proposals which meet the LFRSA guidance in terms of minimum finished floor level (i.e. 3.0mAOD; see paras 3.13 and 3.27) and flood resilience (see paras 3.28 and 3.29).

In this regard, we ask that a planning condition be attached to any approval granted to ensure that an appropriate development is delivered. Please note that any submitted drawings for approval should be updated prior to approval to include these updated minimum finished floor and mitigation levels. The LPA should ensure that the applicant has addressed the following matters within any application/FRA to ensure a safe development: - Flood Resistance and resilience shall be in

Page 29 accordance with Building Regulations. - Access/Egress shall be in accordance with LPA Emergency Planners requirements.

We advise that significant depths of tidal flooding could be experienced external to this development over the lifetime of the development, which could lead to unsafe access / egress and evacuation to and from the development. - Management of surface water shall be in accordance with Lead Local Flood Authority requirements.

Pollution Prevention during Construction

Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to minimise the risks of pollution and detrimental effects to the water interests in and around the site. Such safeguards should cover the use of plant and machinery, oils/chemicals and materials; the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles; the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds and the control and removal of spoil and wastes. We recommend the applicant refer to our Pollution Prevention Guidelines, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pollution-prevention-for- businesses

Waste Management

Should this proposal be granted planning permission, then in accordance with the waste hierarchy, we wish the applicant to consider reduction, reuse and recovery of waste in preference to offsite incineration and disposal to landfill during site construction.

If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. If the applicant require more specific guidance it is available on our website https://www.gov.uk/how-to-classify-different-types-of-waste

8.17 Wessex Water - The applicant has stated that they propose to maintain the existing connection to the combined sewer in Marsh Road. Whilst we acknowledge that some surface water runoff from this site is likely to reach the public sewer, the drainage investigation drawing appears inconclusive with ‘assumed’ connectivity, no evidence of sewer tracing or CCTV confirming the actual points of connection to the public sewer or details of existing pipe diameters and gradients. On review of the documents and our network we do not consider it likely that the whole site is currently discharging the estimated 1/100 year flow of 19.5 l/s via a single gulley to the existing 225mm combined sewer as suggested. There is no evidence of the diameter of this gulley pipe or point of connection and we are concerned that the proposed rate of 13.7 l/s in to the 225mm combined sewer will increase the risk of foul sewer flooding.

If other methods in the SuDS hierarchy are proven not viable then the maximum discharge rate that we will consider from this site is 5 litre/second for all storm events

Page 30 and the applicant must demonstrate how they can accommodate this within their site.

8.18 Flood Risk Management - In response to our earlier (holding) objection/s and additional comments provided by Wessex Water (11/03/2020) the applicant has submitted a revised Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy (FRA&DS) document dated 08/05/2020, containing an amended Outline Drainage Plan (ref: FRA&DS Figure 4.1, dated 05/05/2020).

Whilst we note this revised FRA&DS document continues to make reference to the potential incorporation of a variable control device (s 4.12 & s 5.15) with which to manage the discharge of surface water to the adjacent combined sewer system, we acknowledge that sections 4.5, 4.11 & 5.14 confirm relevant and acceptable design criteria (1:100yr plus 40%) and a (reduced) discharge rate of 5l/s, in accordance with Wessex Water’s requirements. The application of a single, maximum discharge rate of 5l/s is also emphasised within Table 4.2, while the provision of additional / corresponding attenuation is shown on the amended plan (Figure 4.1).

On this basis, we (DC/FRM) are able to withdraw our earlier recommendation of a (Holding) Objection in this matter, subject to the attachment of following pre- commencement planning conditions in respect of detailed design and maintenance requirements;

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, and providing clarification of how drainage is to be managed during construction, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to protect water quality.

No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding.

8.19 Environmental Health – In view of the site’s current use and numerous historic potentially contaminative land uses within 250m of the location, it is considered that

Page 31 the applicant should be required to satisfy the Planning Authority that the site is adequately characterised in terms of land contamination issues.

Demolition and Construction

This demolition is likely to have significant effects upon the environment and residents. I strongly advise that the Developer produces a Method Statement for the demolition and construction phases of the development.

This Statement must include arrangements for protecting the environment and residents from Noise, Vibration and Dust. The statement shall also include proposed provisions for the removal of any potentially hazardous waste found / generated on site. The Method Statement shall be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the demolition.

Due to the close vicinity of existing residential dwellings to this site, the Demolition Method Statement should have particular regard to the following to protect residents from nuisance:

 No bonfires to be held on site at any time.  Hours of demolition limited to:  Monday – Friday 0700 – 1900  Saturday 0800 – 1300  No noisy activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays  If there are to be any proposed deviations from these hours, please contact Environmental Protection to discuss these.  Start up and movement of vehicles / equipment etc. will be limited to 30 minutes prior to the hours of demolition or construction only.  To minimise disturbance, broadband alarm or video shall be fitted to works vehicles instead of the conventional beepers when reversing.  Activities which may give rise to dust shall be controlled, as far as practicable, to minimise dust emissions. This must include controlling dust from regularly trafficked road areas. Dust suppression may be achieved using water and locating equipment and machinery, away from residential areas.  At all times, a contact telephone number shall be displayed on site for members of the public to use to raise issues. A named person will also be provided to Environmental Health in order for contact to be made should complaints be received.  Any waste arising at the site shall be appropriately segregated and controlled prior to its removal by an appropriately licensed contractor. Any waste arising from the activity which could potentially be contaminated in any way shall also be segregated again, and removed appropriately. Environmental Protection must be informed if this occurs.  The use of any radio / amplified music system on site must be kept at a level not to cause annoyance to noise sensitive premises beyond the boundary of the site.  Any future sub-contractors to the site shall be made aware of, and comply with any guidelines/conditions relating to site management of emissions of

Page 32 noise, dust, smoke, fumes etc., made in as part of the determination of this application.  Letter drops to adjacent residents in close proximity should be considered as part of the Demolition / Construction phase to give a minimum of 48 hours’ notice of any exceptional activities proposed.

Noise

Should a Full application be submitted, due consideration shall be given to any plant i.e. those associated with heating systems etc. and an appropriate noise assessment is required. The assessment should indicate noise levels from the proposed plant, existing background noise levels and any attenuation that may be required. A BS4142 assessment would be suitable along with details of proposed mitigation that may arise from the assessment.

8.20 WPA - Because of the historical/current land use (car mechanics), I would recommend that standard contaminated land planning conditions are included should the site be granted planning permission. An example of standard contaminated land conditions is found below:

“Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified all previous uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources pathways and receptors and potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. A site investigation scheme based on (1). to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected including those off site.

3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2). and based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3). are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the prior express consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Page 33 REASONS: To ensure that the proposed development does caused pollution of local environment in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23 Planning and Pollution Control precautionary principle and Policy AH6 of the West Dorset District Local Plan (2006).

A condition for unforeseen contamination is also recommended.

9.0 Representations

9.1 Nine, third party comments have been received objecting to the application, the reasons for which are summarised below:

 Exacerbate existing parking issues as only 14 parking spaces for 20 flats  Existing parking issues as people park there from many adjoining roads and people visiting the town centre and Asda  Loss of business units  Overdevelopment/overcrowding  Focused on small, one bed units not resulting in a good social mix  Will attract investors won’t benefit local people trying to buy  Losing sense of identity to a sea of flats  Loss of valuable on-road parking spaces  Loss of privacy from overlooking  Loss of sunlight  Highway safety concerns – cars can only exit Marsh Road by pulling out from a blind junction on to Newstead Road and high speed of cars using Marsh Road  Already overloaded road system  Impact on the character of the area  Noise pollution  Impact on the Rodwell Trail including stability concerns

9.2 Concerns were also raised regarding the impact of the proposal on surrounding property prices however this is not considered to be a material planning consideration. Concerns have also been raised regarding the impact of the proposal on the side access to the neighbouring property, this is considered a civil matter but also the application is outline with all matters reserved.

9.3 Comments were raised that the site boundary is shown to be on Trail Land, in response to this certificate B was submitted and notice served on the council.

9.4 Concerns were also raised that indicative plans are not suitable for considering such a large site in an important location however this is common practice for an outline application.

10.0 Relevant Policies

West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan

Page 34  INT1. Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development  ENV1. Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest  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  ENV13. Achieving High Levels of Environmental Performance  ENV16. Amenity  SUS1. The Level of Economic and Housing Growth  SUS2. Distribution of Development  ECON3. Protection of Other Employment Sites  HOUS1. Affordable Housing  COM7. Creating a Safe and Efficient transport Network  COM9. Parking Standards in New Development  COM10. The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure

National Planning Policy Framework

2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

Decision making:

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.

Other material considerations

Urban Design (SPG3) Weymouth and Portland Landscape Character Assessment 2013 DCC Parking standards guidance

11.0 Human rights

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

Page 35 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.

12.0 Public Sector Equalities Duty

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.

In the context of the above PSED, the proposal would provide parking adjacent to the proposed flats with some units provided on the ground floor at all one level.

13.0 Financial benefits

Material Considerations Employment created during construction phase Not known Spending in local economy by residents of 20 flats Not known Financial Contribution for off-site affordable housing £5,772

Non Material Considerations Contributions to Council Tax Revenue Not known New Homes Bonus Not known CIL Not known

14.0 Climate Implications

14.1 The construction phase would include the release of carbon monoxide from vehicles and emissions from the construction process. Energy would be used as a result of the production of the building materials and during the construction process. When occupied the development would generate vehicular movements releasing carbon monoxide. However it should be noted that modern building regulations would help minimise such heat release. A balance has to be struck between providing housing to meet needs versus conserving natural resources and minimising energy use.

15.0 Planning Assessment

Principle of Development

Page 36 15.1 In terms of the principal of the development the site lies within the defined development boundary for Weymouth. Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to “strictly control” development outside DDBs, “having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. Given the location of the site inside the DDB with good access to amenities the principle of the application is acceptable. The development will also further assist in the lack of five year housing supply, subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan.

15.2 The site is currently occupied by Marsh Road garages, the proposed development would therefore result in the loss of an employment use. The site is not an allocated employment site and therefore local plan policy ECON 3 is applicable. Policy ECON 3 of the Local Plan seeks to retain existing employment sites and reads as follows:

i) Outside key employment sites, the redevelopment of existing employment sites to an alternative employment use will normally be permitted.

ii) The redevelopment of employment land and premises for non-employment uses that are in accordance with other planning policies will be permitted where it will not prejudice the efficient and effective use of the remainder of the employment area and:

 the present (or where vacant or derelict, the previous) use causes significant harm to the character or amenities of the surrounding area and it has been demonstrated that no other appropriate viable alternative employment uses could be attracted to the site; or  a substantial over-supply of suitable alternative employment sites is locally available; or  redevelopment of the site would offer important community benefits or no significant loss of jobs / potential jobs.

15.3 The proposal is not considered to be fully compliant with policy ECON 3. The proposal is for residential and in this case no alternative employment uses are proposed. In relation to bullet point one, the existing car mechanics/garage could be argued to be a non-conforming use with housing either side this means that any noise and comings and goings to and from the site associated with that commercial activity would be to the potential detriment of the neighbours that live either side. Although this impact could not be argued to result in significant harm considering the size of the site and the location of the ASDA supermarket and its car park opposite. Nor can it be considered that there is a substantial over-supply of suitable alternative employment sites locally available. The last bullet point requires the redevelopment of the site to offer important community benefits or no significant loss of jobs/potential jobs. The application was discussed with the Economic Development Officer, who wasn’t concerned with the loss of the garage and no concerns were

Page 37 raised by the Town Council in relation to the loss of this employment use. The proposal would however provide 20 flats contributing to the Councils lack of five year housing land supply. In the planning balance, the Government’s emphasis on housing growth coupled with the benefit of the scheme to the Council’s housing land supply and the size of the site which surrounded on both sides by residential development it is considered to outweigh the non-compliance with policy ECON 3. Compliance with other policies in the Local Plan is considered below.

Residential Amenity

15.4 The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing garage building and the erection of 20 flats. The applicant seeks outline permission with all matters reserved. Indicative plans have been provided to show how this could be accommodated on the site. The indicative plans show a 2 and half storey development with accommodation in the roof space with the proposed block located to the front of the site with parking to the side and behind.

15.5 Initially concerns were raised regarding the amount of outside amenity space that could be accommodated on the site alongside 20 flats. In response to this and other points raised a revised location plan was submitted extending the site slightly to the south and the application re-consulted upon. Amended indicative plans were also submitted which showed this amendment to the site boundary which meant that more meaningful outside amenity space could be provided on the site.

15.6 In terms of neighbouring amenity, to the rear of the site is the Rodwell Trail, to the front of the site is Marsh Road with the car park for Asda beyond. To the south are trees and the junction with Weston Road. The nearby properties of Weston Road are a sufficient distance away. To the north of the site is a terrace of residential properties off Marsh Road. The submitted indicative plans show the proposed block of flats positioned away from the side of the neighbouring property, by the access into the site, and the block would replace the existing garage on the site. The proposed fenestration details are not known at this outline stage and would be considered as part of any reserved matters application.

15.7 Environmental Health were consulted on the application and considered that the demolition of the existing building on the site could have significant effects upon neighbouring residents. They strongly advised that the developer produces a method statement for the demolition and construction phases of the development and such a condition would be placed on any approval granted. Environmental Health also requested a condition for a noise assessment before the installation of any plant, for example those associated with heating systems etc. Therefore such a condition would be placed on any approval granted.

15.8 Given all of the above it would be difficult to argue that the proposed flats would have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity given the indicative plans submitted. There is nothing to suggest at this outline stage that the proposal would

Page 38 result in adverse impacts on neighbours and Policy ENV 16 of the adopted local plan is met.

Visual Amenity

15.9 The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing garage building and the erection of 20 flats. The applicant seeks outline permission with all matters reserved. Indicative plans have been provided to show how this could be accommodated on the site. The indicative plans show a 2 and half storey development with accommodation in the roof space with the proposed block location to the front of the site with parking to the side and behind. The Urban Design Officer was consulted on the application and considered that although the application is only outline, it does conform in density through the number of units. The Urban Design Officer sets out that the indicative plans currently represent an over development of the site and the overall scale of the scheme should be reduced. Care should also be taken to ensure that the architectural style does not emphasize its bulk and particular attention should be paid to the façade treatment, for example, the use of a painted brick or render finish would be more in keeping with the character of the area. In relation to the scale of the proposal it would be viewed in relation to the three storey building located on the junction of Weston Road and Marsh Road and then opposite the site there is the ASDA Supermarket and the bulk of the multi-storey car park. As the application is outline the elevation plans are indicative. Given the surrounding development it is considered that a development could be achieved that would not be unduly prominent in terms of the local character.

Highway Safety

15.10 The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing garage building on the site and the erection of 20. flats. The applicant seeks outline permission with all matters reserved. Indicative plans were submitted showing the access to the north of the site. Highways were consulted on the application and raised no objections subject to reserved matters and consideration of some further points. One of these points was that the location is very sustainable but it is noted that not every unit has an off-street parking space and the impact of this could be significantly reduced with the creation of a further 3 spaces. In response to this and other points raised a revised location plan was submitted extending the site slightly to the south and the application re-consulted on. Amended indicative site plans were also submitted which showed the change to the site boundary meant additional parking spaces could be provided.

Flooding & Drainage

15.11 The application site is located within flood zone 1 and is seen to be at significant risk of surface water flooding during severe rainfall events. The Flood Risk Management Team were consulted on the application and considered that the application did not provide sufficient assessment of the prevailing risk, outline of the

Page 39 existing drainage arrangements or clarification of the proposed management of surface water runoff, as derived from the redeveloped site. In response to these comments a Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy was submitted. At this point the Environment Agency (EA) were also consulted on the application and objected as the Flood Risk Assessment did not include any reference to the possible future impact of climate change, hence does not include consideration of flood risk at the site for the lifetime of the development. Amendments were made to the Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy and it was re-submitted. The EA were re- consulted on the application, withdrawing their objection as the FRA had been updated to contain an understanding of the Weymouth Flood Risk Strategy, a more comprehensive assessment of tidal flood risk including the most recent climate change requirements over the lifetime of the development. The changes included that the proposal would meet guidance in terms of minimum finished floor level i.e. 3.om AOD and the EA requested a condition be added to any approval granted to ensure that an appropriate development is delivered. The amended Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy responded to the earlier holding objection of the Flood Risk Management Team and comments of Wessex Water. The Flood Risk Management Team withdrew their holding objection subject to conditions for detailed design and maintenance which would be placed on any approval granted.

Contamination

15.12 The current use of the site is a car garage and therefore WPA have recommended a standard contaminated land condition and an unforeseen contamination condition. These conditions would be placed on any approval granted.

Affordable Housing

15.13 Para 63 of the NPPF states that Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). Major development for housing is defined in the NPPF as development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. The proposed development exceeds this threshold and therefore local plan policy HOUS1 applies. As the application site is in Weymouth it requires 35% of the development to be for affordable housing.

15.14 Local plan policy HOUS 1 sets out that applicants seeking to justify a lower level of affordable housing provision will be expected to provide an assessment of viability. A viability assessment was submitted as part of the application and assessed by the District Valuer Service. The DVS considered that a scheme of 100% open market units with an off-site contribution of £5,772 towards affordable housing would be financially viable.

15.15 If the application were to be approved this financial contribution would be secured by a S106 agreement.

Page 40 Community Infrastructure Levy

15.16 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.

15.17 The development proposal is CIL liable. 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.

16.0 Conclusion

16.1 The applicant is seeking outline permission for the erection of 20 flats. The application site is located within the Weymouth defined development boundary and complies with policy SUS 2 and ECON 3. It is also considered acceptable in relation to visual amenity, residential amenity, flooding, and highway safety.

17.0 Recommendation

Recommendation A: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to grant, subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in a form to be agreed by the legal services manager to secure the following:

The provision of an off-site affordable housing contribution of £5,772 together with the following conditions (and their reasons):

1. Before any development is commenced details of 'reserved matters' (that is any matters in respect of which details have not been given in the application and which concern the layout, scale, appearance, access or landscaping) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval.

REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by the provisions of Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

2. Application for approval of any 'reserved matter' must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

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

Page 41 3. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan - Drawing Number received on 08/01/2020

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

5. No development shall be commenced until details and samples of all external facing materials for the wall(s) and roof(s) of the built structures on any part of the site shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.

6. No development shall take place until a demolition and construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved management plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition and construction period. The management plan shall provide for:

 Hours of demolition  Hours of operation  Start up and movement of vehicles / equipment etc will be limited to 30 minutes prior to the hours of demolition or construction only.  Location for loading/unloading and storage of plant, waste or debris and  construction materials;  Activities which may give rise to dust shall be controlled, as far as practicable, to minimise dust emissions. This must include controlling dust from regularly trafficked road areas. Dust suppression may be achieved using water and locating equipment and machinery, away from residential areas.  At all times, a contact telephone number shall be displayed on site for members of the public to use to raise issues. A named person will also be provided to Environmental Health in order for contact to be made should complaints be received.  Any waste arising at the site shall be appropriately segregated and controlled prior to its removal by an appropriately licensed contractor. Any waste arising from the activity which could potentially be contaminated in any way shall also be segregated again, and removed appropriately. Environmental Protection must be informed if this occurs.  Any future sub-contractors to the site shall be made aware of, and comply with any guidelines/conditions relating to site management of emissions of

Page 42 noise, dust, smoke, fumes etc, made in as part of the determination of this application.  Letter drops to adjacent residents in close proximity should be considered as part of the Demolition / Construction phase to give a minimum of 48 hours’ notice of any exceptional activities proposed.  Parking of vehicle of site operative and visitors (including measures taken to ensure satisfactory access and movement of existing occupiers of neighbouring properties during construction);  Routes of construction traffic;  Arrangements for turning vehicles;  Arrangements to receive abnormal loads or unusually large vehicles.

REASON: In the interest of neighbouring amenity.

7. Prior to the installation of any plant or machinery, a noise assessment of the plant or machinery shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall indicate noise levels from the plant or machinery, existing background noise levels and any attenuation that may be required. The assessment shall also include details of any proposed mitigation required. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed details.

REASON: In the interest of neighbouring amenity.

8. No development shall take place until a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, and providing clarification of how drainage is to be managed during construction and a timetable for implementation, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details including the timetable for implementation.

REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to protect water quality.

9. No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding.

10. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures, including the finished floor levels, of the Flood Risk

Page 43 Assessment and Drainage Strategy, dated 30 January 2020, unless a subsequent variation is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development.

11. The units shall not be first occupied until flood warning and emergency evacuation procedure notices shall have been erected in accordance with numbers, positions and with wording which shall have first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the notices shall be retained on site in accordance with the agreed details and shall be kept legible and clear of obstruction.

REASON: To ensure that residents of the site are aware that the area is at risk of flooding, and the emergency evacuation procedure and route(s) to be used during flood events.

12. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved the following information shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

2. A site investigation scheme based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected including those off site.

3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

The remediation strategy, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented before the development hereby approved first comes in to use or is occupied. Within 4 weeks of the completion of the remediation strategy a verification report demonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met.

Page 44 REASON: To ensure potential land contamination is addressed.

13. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority and an investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with requirements of BS10175 (as amended). Should any contamination be found requiring remediation, a remediation scheme, including a time scale, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Remediation work shall then be carried out in accordance with the remediation scheme. On completion of the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be prepared and submitted within two weeks of completion and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure risks from contamination are minimised.

Informatives:

Pollution Prevention during Construction

Waste Management

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

Page 45 date you plan to commence development before any work takes place and follow the correct CIL payment procedure.

Recommendation B: Refuse permission for the reasons set out below if the legal agreement is not completed within 6 months of the committee resolution or such extended time as agreed by the head of planning:

Page 46 Agenda Item 5b

APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/20/000597

APPLICATION SITE: Land West of, 5 Chapel Lane, Maiden Newton

PROPOSAL: Demolish existing outbuildings and erect 2 no 3 bedroom detached houses with parking.

APPLICANT – Northshore Companies Ltd.

Case Officer – Emma Telford

Ward Member(s) – Cllr A Alford

1.0 Summary of Recommendation:

1.1 Grant subject to conditions.

2.0 Reason for the recommendation:

 Absence of 5 year land supply  The site is within the defined development boundary and is considered to be sustainable and the proposal is acceptable in its design and general visual impact.  It is not considered to result in any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.  There are no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this application.

3.0 Key planning issues

Issue Conclusion Principle of development Located within the defined development boundary (DDB) for Maiden Newton.

Visual Amenity and It would have an acceptable impact on the visual Heritage Assets amenity of the site or locality and the character of the conservation area.

Residential Amenity It would not have a significant adverse impact on the living condition of occupiers of residential properties.

Page 47

Area of Outstanding Would not harm the character, special qualities or Natural Beauty natural beauty of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Contamination Environmental Health raised no comments.

Highway Safety Highways raised no objections subject to a condition.

Biodiversity Negative bat and barn owl certificate submitted.

Affordable Housing The proposal does not meet the affordable housing thresholds.

Community Infrastructure CIL liable. Levy

4.0 Description of Site

4.1 The application site is located to the south of Chapel Lane. The site is currently largely undeveloped, with a double garage and sheds located in the south-west of the site. The site is surrounded by residential properties.

4.2 The application site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) for Maiden Newton. It is also located within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a small part of the site falls within the Maiden Newton and Higher Frome conservation area.

5.0 Description of Proposal

5.1 The proposed development involves the erection of two, detached dwellings. The proposed properties would be set back from the lane behind the proposed parking bays. The dwellings would be one and half storey with accommodation within the roof. Both plots would have slate effect roof tiles and plot 1 would be constructed of pale brick and plot 2 red brick.

6.0 Relevant Planning History

Application No. Application Description Decision Date of decision

1/W/06/001791 Erect two storey dwelling Approved 27/11/2006

1/W/06/001406 Erect two storey dwelling Refused 08/09/2006

Page 48 1/E/91/000629 Develop Lane by the erection of a Approved 06/02/1992 dwelling and construct new vehicular and pedestrian access

7.0 Relevant Constraints

Contaminated Land buffer Within defined development boundary Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Part of the site within the Conservation Area

8.0 Consultations

8.1 Maiden Newton Parish Council - Maiden Newton Parish Council object to the development on the basis that the two houses, as designed, are too much for the site and that one house would fit much better. Two houses could have as many as 6 cars needing parking spaces and there is only room for 4. There is very limited off and on street parking in this area which could cause congestion. The Highways Officer draws attention to the fact that this site faces onto the narrowest part of Chapel Lane, which at this point is a 5m wide private road with no pavement. The houses will have to be moved further back into the plots to allow for workable parking spaces. The houses themselves are very cramped, especially upstairs where the loft space is incorporated into the bedrooms: all will have sloping ceilings and part of the upstairs lighting comes from velux windows. The boundary line between plots 1 and 2 is the wall of house 1. We note, from the amended plans, that option 1 of the Highways Engineer's comments, which required the widening of each parking space to 3.0m with a minimum of 5.0m clearance from the northern edge of the road has been adopted. As the road is a private road there is concern about how parking, turning etc. would affect the other households and disruption when constructing the properties. Drainage would be a problem as, during heavy rain, it floods in front of the two garages. This would need to be addressed. There is concern that if the water was fixed at the site, the water would then run down Chapel Lane onto the Church Road causing problems along the road up towards the church by the war memorial which also can flood in heavy rain.

8.2 Environment Agency – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.3 Highways – Due to the width of Chapel Lane immediately outside the application site the car parking spaces will not be accessible as indicated and will require alterations. Before the Highway Authority can make its formal recommendation the following amendment(s) should be secured: Either:

Page 49 each of the proposed car parking space will need to be widened to 3.0m with a minimum of 5.0m clearance provided from the northern edge of the Chapel Lane carriageway to the rear of the spaces alternatively: the width of the spaces could remain as indicated but a minimum of 6.0m clearance provided from the northern edge of the Chapel Lane carriageway to the rear of the spaces.

8.4 In response to the comment from Highways an amended plan was submitted and Highways re-consulted.

8.5 Further Highways Comment - In reference to the amended plans submitted regarding the above planning application for which notification was received 25th June 2020.

The section of Chapel Lane immediately outside the site is a private road and not public highway. The alterations to the plans now enable cars to enter and exit the proposed spaces.

With the above in mind the Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition(s):

Turning and parking construction Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on the submitted plans must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

8.6 Trees Officer – This feedback is given under COVID-19 restrictions and so no site visit undertaken. I note that the application form states there are no trees when Google Street View and aerial photographs quite clearly show one next to the existing outbuilding. However, this does not appear to be of significance in size within the street scene and would not be worthy of a TPO from what I can see on public records. Recommendations: No objections on arboricultural grounds.

8.7 Environmental Health – No comment.

8.8 In response to the comments made by the parish council regarding drainage, Technical Services were consulted on the application and made the following comments. 8.9 Technical Services - The site is in EA flood zone 1 and the EA’s indicative surface water flood maps show that the surface water flood risk is very low. I am also

Page 50 unaware of any previous flood incidents at that location. With regards the reported problems that have been experienced during heavy rain, I do not doubt that there are on occasion localised flood issues and the issue with the flooding in front of the adjacent garages is a prevailing problem that obviously needs sorting. The current proposals seek to discharge collected surface water via soakaway which will be satisfactory provided ground conditions are suitable. The applicant should ensure that this is the case and be satisfied that peak flows will be acceptable and not result in surface water run-off issues particularly as the site development will see an increase in impermeable surfacing. 9.0 Representations

9.1 Seven third party responses were received objecting to the proposal, multiple comments were made by the same parties. A summary of the objections received are set out below:

 Shared access along an unadopted, unmade track which will not cope with increase in traffic without causing significant extra maintenance expenses  Pressure on a narrow dead-end lane  Nowhere to turn a vehicle in the lane would inevitably cause problems with vehicular access and egress  Proposed 2 dwellings are designed for 2 families thus vastly increasing traffic down the lane which is detrimental to highway safety  Proposed parking bays at narrowest point of the lane, extremely difficult to turn onto and off the parking bays  Will result in parking elsewhere on the lane causing blockage or at the very least inconvenience to residents and services such as Royal Mail and refuse collection  Lack of parking for contractors during construction  Insufficient parking  Existing drainage problems, pools forming adjacent to the application site  Two storey house is an overdevelopment of a small footprint  Loss of privacy and light to neighbouring gardens  A bungalow would be more acceptable in terms of light, privacy, traffic and appropriateness  Insufficient curtilage  Two houses on this site would be out of keeping with the surrounding properties  Not in keeping with the surrounding buildings  Building work would cause major disruption to the neighbouring properties  Overbearing impact on neighbouring properties  Overlooking from skylights  Direct view straight into the neighbouring property

Page 51 9.2 Although the comments received were objecting to the proposal, some positive comments were also received:

 Not objecting to the principal of development of this site  Improve a neglected, derelict area

9.3 Concerns were also raised regarding the boundary hedge, in particular that it should not be cut down or back and regarding ownership of part of the site however these are considered to be civil matters and will not be considered as part of this planning application. However, in response to the comments regarding ownership an amended plan was submitted reducing the red line slightly to reflect the boundary.

10.0 Relevant Policies

West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan

ENV 1 – Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest ENV 2 – Wildlife and Habitats ENV 4 – Heritage Assets ENV 9 – Pollution and Contaminated Land ENV 10 – The Landscape and Townscape Setting ENV 11 – The Pattern of Streets and Spaces ENV 12 – The Design and Positioning of Buildings ENV 13 – Achieving High Levels of Environmental Performance ENV 15 – Efficient and Appropriate Use of Land ENV 16 – Amenity SUS 1 – The Level of Economic and Housing Growth SUS 2 – Distribution of Development HOUS 1 – Affordable Housing COM 7 – Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network COM 9 – Parking Standards in New Development COM 10 – The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure

National Planning Policy Framework

2. Achieving sustainable development 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Other material considerations

Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009)

Page 52 West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment 2009 Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019-2024 Evershot, Maiden Newton, Frampton, Cattistock, Frome St Quintin and Bradford Peverell Conservation Area Appraisal

11.0 Human rights

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.

12.0 Public Sector Equalities Duty

13.0 Financial benefits

Material Considerations Employment created during construction phase Not known Spending in local economy by residents of 2 dwellings Not known

Non Material Considerations Contributions to Council Tax Revenue Not known New Homes Bonus Not known CIL Not known

14.0 Climate Implications

Page 53

14.1 The construction phase would include the release of carbon monoxide from vehicles and emissions from the construction process. Energy would be used as a result of the production of the building materials and during the construction process. When occupied the development would generate vehicular movements releasing carbon monoxide. Heat escape from dwellings would contribute to greenhouse gases. However it should be noted that modern building regulations would help minimise such heat release. A balance has to be struck between providing housing to meet needs versus conserving natural resources and minimising energy use.

15.0 Planning Assessment

Principle of Development

15.1 The proposed development involves the erection of 2 dwellings. The application site is within the defined development boundary for Maiden Newton. Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to “strictly control” development outside DDBs, “having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. Given the location of the site inside the DDB with good access to amenities the principle of the application is acceptable. The development will also further assist in the lack of five year housing supply, subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan. 15.2 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Councils have 4.83 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

15.3 The lack of a 5 year supply, even if the supply is only marginally below 5 years, means that less weight has to be given to policies such as Policy SUS 2 in decision- making. The local plan inspector's comments, which raised concerns about the marginal nature of the council's housing land supply, remain just as relevant to decision-making, now the supply has slipped below 5 years. This application site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) of Maiden Newton in the adopted local plan and would be seen in the wider context of the surrounding buildings. Based on the requirement to assist in the lack of five year housing supply,

Page 54 and subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan, the proposal in principle is considered acceptable.

15.4 In addition an application was previously approved on the site under the reference 1/W/06/001791 for the erection of one dwelling. Although the dwelling was never built and the permission has since lapsed.

Visual Amenity and Heritage Assets

15.5 The proposed development involves the erection of two dwellings. The southwest corner of the site is located within the Maiden Newton and Higher Frome Vauchurch conservation area, the site is also located within the setting of the important local building the Old Chapel positioned to the west of the site. The site is currently undeveloped and overgrown with a corrugated sheet roof garage in the North West corner of the site. The proposal seeks to redevelop the site with the erection of two, one and half storey dwellings with accommodation in the roof space. The proposed dwellings would have pitched roofs with the gable end facing Chapel Lane which would reflect the adjacent neighbouring garages. An arched window is proposed at first floor level to reflect the features of the locally important property, Old Chapel. Both proposed dwellings would be constructed of slate effect roof tiles, plot one would be pale brick and plot 2 would be red brick. A condition would be placed on any approval granted for the details of the materials to be submitted. There is a mixture of materials and architectural styles in the street scene around the application site. Concerns have been raised that the erection of two dwellings would result in the site being overdeveloped and not in keeping with the surrounding development. However in the street scene of Chapel lane there is a variety of plot sizes and orientation of dwellings. Also to the north of the site are the terraced properties of Pound Piece which are set in smaller plots. A condition would also be placed on any approval to restrict permitted development rights so that any additional extensions would require planning permission to maintain the spacing between the proposed properties and the surrounding built form. Given the above the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the site or locality. The proposal is also considered to preserve the character of the conservation area. This conclusion has been reached having regard to: (1) section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area; and (2) Local Plan policy.

Residential Amenity

15.6 The proposed development involves the erection of two dwellings, located to the south of Chapel Lane. The proposed dwellings would be one and half storey with accommodation in the roof reducing the overall height of the dwellings. The proposed units are also positioned with the gable end facing Chapel Lane which means the roofs slope away from the neighbouring properties to the side. The dwellings would be set back in the plot behind the parking which would result in both

Page 55 the parking and the lane separating the properties from the dwellings located opposite in Pound Piece. To the west of the site is the property the Old Chapel, however the first floor windows on the elevation facing the Old Chapel would be roof lights which would face the garage and driveway of Old Chapel and the garage and driveway of No. 4 Chapel Lane. On the rear of the proposed dwellings a larger arched window would be at first floor level. However these windows would serve bedrooms and are set back from the boundary by the proposed rear gardens. Some views from these windows would be obtained of the neighbouring plots but these would be of the very rear of the gardens and not the amenity space adjacent to the rear of their properties. Any views towards the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties would be at an angle. The east boundary of the site would face the neighbouring property No. 5 Chapel Lane. A single ground floor window is proposed facing the boundary however due to its height it would face the boundary treatment. A single roof light is also proposed on this east elevation which would serve a bathroom and would be conditioned to be obscure glazed and retained as such thereafter. It is also important to note that no dormers could be added to the proposed dwellings without the need for planning permission as they are located within the AONB. In addition, a condition would be placed on any approval to require the need for planning permission for any additional roof lights to be added.

15.7 Local plan policy ENV 12 states that new housing should meet and where possible exceed appropriate minimum space standards. The proposed dwellings meet the space standards for a three bedroom dwelling. The proposed dwellings are described as three bed but the third bedroom is small in size and likely to be used as a study. Due to the design of the properties the third bedroom is served by a roof light this is considered acceptable in this case because it is the third bedroom and likely to be used as a study. The two main double bedrooms are served by a large single window. It is also considered that the proposed dwellings would each have adequate gardens to the rear of the properties. Given all of the above the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the living condition of occupiers of residential properties, both existing and proposed.

15.8 Concerns have been raised regarding drainage, the parish council set out that during heavy rain, it floods in front of the two garages. In response to the concerns raised Technical Services were consulted and considered that the current proposal to discharge collected surface water via soakaway would be satisfactory provided ground conditions are suitable. They also set out that the applicant would need to be satisfied that peak flows will be acceptable and not result in surface water run off issues particularly as the site development will see an increase in impermeable surfacing. Given the advice of Technical Services a condition would be placed on any approval for a surface water management scheme to be submitted.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

15.9 The application site is located within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is for the erection of two dwellings and would be viewed in

Page 56 relation to the neighbouring properties and the wider built environment of Maiden Newton. Given the above it is considered that the proposal would not harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Contamination

15.10 The application site is located within a contaminated land buffer, Environmental Health were consulted on the application and raised no comments.

Highway Safety

15.11 The proposed development involves the erection of two dwellings. Each dwelling would sit behind two parking bays accessed off Chapel Lane. Numerous concerns were made regarding highway safety and the access to the proposed properties. Highways were consulted on the application and raised concerns that due to the width of Chapel Lane immediately outside the application site the car parking spaces would not be accessible as indicated. In response to the Highways comments the proposal was amended, moving the parking bays further back into the site. Highways were re-consulted on the amended plans and raised no objections subject to a turning and parking construction condition which would be placed on any approval granted.

Biodiversity

15.12 Having had regard to the submitted phase 1 bat survey and the negative bat and barn owl certificate it is considered that the proposal will have no adverse impact on biodiversity interests.

Affordable Housing

15.13 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 63 sets out that the provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). This application involves the erection of 2 dwellings and therefore does not meet the threshold for major development nor does it meet the threshold for designated rural areas and therefore the provision of affordable housing is not required.

Community Infrastructure Levy

15.14 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.

Page 57

15.15 The development proposal is CIL liable. The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sqm. The CIL charge would be confirmed when the liability notice is issued. 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.

16.0 Conclusion

16.1 The application is for the erection of 2 dwellings. The application site is located within the DDB and is therefore considered to comply with Local Plan policy SUS 2 and is therefore acceptable in principle. The proposal is also considered acceptable subject to conditions in relation to visual amenity, residential amenity, area of outstanding natural beauty, heritage assets, highway safety, contamination and biodiversity.

17.0 Recommendation

GRANT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Plot 2 Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 9294/102 B received on 06/03/2020 Plot 1 Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 9294/101 C received on 27/04/2020 Location, Block & Site Plans - Drawing Number 9294/100 F received on 15/09/2020

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3) No development above Damp Proof Course (DPC) level shall be commenced until details and samples of all external facing materials for the walls and roofs shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the

Page 58 development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.

4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no alteration(s) of the dwellings hereby approved, permitted by Class C of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the 2015 Order, shall be erected or constructed.

REASON: In the interest of residential amenity.

5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement(s) of the dwellings hereby approved, permitted by Class A of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the 2015 Order, shall be erected or constructed.

REASON: In the interest of residential amenity.

6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the roof light serving the east elevation of both dwellings hereby approved shall be permanently glazed and maintained thereafter with obscured glass of a minimum obscurity of level 3 before the dwellinghouses are first brought into use.

REASON: To protect amenity and privacy.

7) Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on the submitted plans must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

REASON: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

8) No development 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 managed during construction and a timetable for the implementation of the scheme, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the submitted details and timetable for implementation.

Page 59 Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding.

Informatives:

1) NPPF

2) All species of bat in the UK are protected by both domestic and European legislation, making it illegal to harm, injure, kill or disturb them, or to destroy, obstruct or otherwise damage places where they roost or seek shelter As such, should any bat species or evidence of bat species be found prior to or during the development, all works must stop immediately and an ecological consultant or John Stobart at Natural England (Tel: 07825844475) must be contacted for further advice before works can proceed. All contractors working on site should be made aware of the advice and provided with the contact details of a relevant ecological consultant.

3) 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.

Page 60 Agenda Item 5c

1.0 Application Number – WD/D/19/001514 Site address - WEST COMBE, SMISHOPS LANE, LODERS, BRIDPORT, DT6 3SA Proposal - Demolish agricultural barn and erect detached dwelling and garage Applicant name – Mr Harris Case Officer – John Shaw Ward Member(s) - Cllr A Alford

This application has been called in to the committee as a result of the Scheme of Delegation process due to the comments received from the Parish Council who objected to the proposal, which is contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

2.0 Summary of Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions.

3.0 Reason for the recommendation:

 The location is considered to be sustainable and the proposal is acceptable in its design and general visual impact.  The development would have no undue impact on the wider landscape and the Uploders and Loders Conservation Area.  There would not be any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.  There would be no undue impact on the use of the wider agricultural holding  The development would not harmfully impact upon local highway safety, ecology or flood risk  There are no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this application

4.0 Table of key planning issues

Issue Conclusion Principle of development The application is for the erection of 1 dwelling outside of, but in close proximity to the Defined Development Boundary (DDB). The dwelling would not be regarded as isolated and would contribute to the vitality of the settlement of Loders. The site would therefore be considered as constituting sustainable development as determined by the NPPF (2019).

Design, appearance and Design, scale and siting would be considered impact on the character appropriate for the site and which would not harm the of the area and AONB appearance of the AONB.

Impact on Uploders and Design, scale and siting would be considered Loders Conservation appropriate for the site and which would not harm the Area appearance of the Conservation Area.

Impact on agricultural The existing barn is redundant and its loss and the enterprise removal of the site from agricultural use would not

Page 61 unduly impact on the success of the wider agricultural holding.

Impact on amenity The proposal would not result in a significant adverse effect on living conditions of either neighbouring properties or future occupiers of the proposed development.

Access and Parking The proposed development would have an acceptable impact in terms of access and parking. No objection was expressed by the Highways Engineer.

Biodiversity Following the submission of a Biodiversity, Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) and its subsequent approval by the natural environment team it is considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on biodiversity.

Flood Risk and Drainage The proposed development would be likely to have an acceptable impact in regard to flood risk and drainage.

Affordable Housing National planning policy as is now set out in the NPPF 2019 establishes thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought. As this site falls below these thresholds an affordable housing contribution is not required.

5.0 Description of Site

5.1 The site is what is described as a redundant farm storage building located 20m to the north of the Loders defined development boundary (DDB) and is accessed from a single track tarmacadam road off Smishops Lane and which serves one other existing dwelling, ‘West Coombe’ that was permitted under application 1/W/92/000187.

5.2 The existing agricultural building is a large functional structure with green steel sheeting and wooden cladding to its exterior walls and gently pitched corrugated roof. The building was extended following a 2003 planning permission and has a large expanse of gravelled hardstanding to its frontage with grass to the south and west of the site. The site is fully enclosed by tall trees to all four sides and elevated from the village to the south.

5.3 A mobile home also currently occupies the site which is currently being used to store apples grown at the site. During the course of the application, the agent has confirmed that the unit is not being used for residential purposes and the Council’s Enforcement team accepted that use of the unit is in association with the lawful use of the agricultural land. As the mobile home is being used in association with the lawful use of the site, no planning permission is required.

5.4 A planning application for an agricultural workers dwelling at the site was

Page 62 refused in 1989.

5.5 The site forms part of the Loders and Uploders Conservation Area, which is centred on the built development which forms the village to the south and the historic Waddon Hill to the north. The site also forms part of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Powerstock Hills Landscape Character Area.

6.0 Description of Development

6.1 The application is for a two storey dwelling with detached double bay garage to replace what is described as a redundant farm storage building. The access to the site would remain unchanged and would solely serve the proposed dwelling. The new dwelling would have a rear garden of depth of approximately 10m but would be overall set in large grounds with the majority of the open space to be to the front of the proposed home. The dwelling would be in close proximity to established trees to its side and rear elevations while the site would be fully enclosed from the wider area by established trees adjacent to the boundary.

6.2 The new home would be formed of natural stone walls, wooden doors and windows and slate tiles. During the course of the application, the size of the dwelling was reduced so that a two storey element which was to project to the rear and a conservatory to the side elevation were removed; as a result, the proposed dwelling is now to have 3 bedrooms.

6.3 The mobile home at the site would be utilised during the construction phase if permission was granted before being removed.

7.0 Relevant Planning History

Application No. Application Decision Date of decision Description 1/W/03/000253 Erect barn Approved 17 March 2003 extension

1/W/92/000187 Erect house with Approved 15 May 1992 garage 1/W/90/000227 Renewal of PA Refused 4 June 1990 1/W/87/661 to site caravan for use by agricultural worker 1/W/89/000591 Develop land by Refused 13 September the erection of an 1989 agricultural workers dwelling 1/W/87/000661 Site mobile home Approved 28 January 1988 for use by agricultural worker

8.0 List of Constraints

Page 63  Outside settlement boundary

 Within the Loders and Uploders Conservation Area (statutory duty to preserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets under the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990)

 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty : (statutory protection in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of their landscapes - National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 & Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000

 Landscape Character Area (Powerstock Hills)

 Contaminated Sites

9.0 Consultations

 Natural England: No comments to make

 Dorset Natural Environment Team: No objection following submission and sign-off of Biodiversity, Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP).

 Technical Services: No Objection

 Environmental Health: No Comment

 Highways Officer: No Objection

 Tree Officer: No Objection subject to compliance with the Hellis Tree Consultancy Arboricultural report

 Conservation Officer: “The site is well set back from the street and due to the gradient of the land, any views from the street into the site and of the proposed development will be generally restricted by this, with the existing house West Combe being far more prominent. The site is set within a particularly sheltered and rather unique spot, with the natural landscape form restricting outward views and sightlines from the village or the wider setting behind. As such, development within this coombe will have little, if no impact on the Conservation Area or the surrounding agricultural setting of the AONB or the historic lynchetts due to separation due to the natural landscape form.

This area also appears to have been in the past detached from any former farm land, the site already partially domesticated by the construction of West Combe in the 1990s at the entrance to the coombe, and despite the present barn, the immediate setting with its large flat grassy area results in the appearance of one of residential rather than agrarian character. The new dwelling, due to its rather semi-isolated character, will only have inter-connecting views with the existing house”.

Page 64  AONB Officer: Visual impact: The Site is remarkably well concealed within a small coombe on the southern slopes of Waddon Hill. Concealment is to some extent a feature of topography, enhanced by mature trees which surround the site. Visual impact is judged to be low.

Landscape impact: Due to its elevation above the village, there is the potential for this development to cause adverse impacts to the dark night skies special quality of the AONB. It is recommended that a strict lighting regime is a condition of development if it is to be approved.

Agricultural impacts are unknown due to a lack of supporting information. Does the removal of the function of this large barn create a need for a similar mass of agricultural buildings elsewhere? Does its removal hamper the ability of a local landholding to manage the area’s grasslands sustainably?

 Loders Parish Council: Objection The Parish Council objected for the following reasons: 1. It is not a sustainable location

2. It lies outside the Defined Development Boundary

3. It does not meet the criteria for development outside Defined Development Boundaries set out in SUS2 of the West Dorset Local Plan

4. It does not meet the local need for two/three bedroom housing Planning Officer comment: During the course of the application, the size of the proposed dwelling has been reduced from a 4 bed to a 3 bedroom unit.

5. It is not a re-use or adaptation of an existing building

6. It does not enhance the conservation area or provide acceptable development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

All consultee responses can be viewed in full on the website.

10.0 Representations One letter of objection was received. The objection was for the following reasons:

 Is not compliant with the Loders Neighbourhood Plan  Is outside of the development boundary  Noise and light pollution may affect local wildlife  The dwelling would not be classed as affordable housing

11.0 Relevant Policies West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015):

Page 65  INT1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development  ENV1 Landscape and seascape and sites of geological interest  ENV2 Wildlife and habitats  ENV4 Heritage assets  ENV5 Flood risk  ENV8 Agricultural Land And Farming Resilience  ENV10 Landscape And Townscape Setting  ENV12 Design And Positioning Of Buildings  ENV15 Efficient And Appropriate Use Of Land  ENV16 Amenity  SUS2 Distribution Of Development  SUS4 Replacement Buildings  SUS5 Neighbourhood Plans  HOUS1 Affordable Housing  HOUS3 Open Market Housing Mix  COM7 Safe and Efficient Transport Network  COM9 Parking Standards in New Development

Loders Neighbourhood Plan  LNP Policy E1: Protection of Important Gaps, Rural Views and Local Green Spaces  LNP Policy E2: Protection of Special Landscape and Historic Features  LNP Policy E3: Protection of Wildlife Habitats  LNP Policy E4: To Protect and Enhance the Character and Appearance of the Area  LNP Policy E5: Location of Development in relation to the Defined Development Boundary (DDB)  LNP Policy H1: Provision of New Homes  LNP Policy H2: Type and Size of Housing

NPPF:  Section 2 – Sustainable Development  Section 4 – Decision-making  Section 5 – Delivering a sufficient supply of homes  Chapter 11 – Making effective use of land  Chapter 12 – Achieving well-designed places  Chapter 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  Chapter 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Decision making: 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.

Other material considerations

Page 66  Dorset Landscape Character Area Appraisal  Dorset AONB Management Plan (2019-2024)  WDDC Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009)  Loders & Uploders, Powerstock & Nettlecombe Conservation Area Appraisal  DCC Parking standards guidance

12.0 Human rights

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.

13.0 Public Sector Equalities Duty

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 neds of other people  Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.

14.0 Financial benefits

14.1 The additional population would help generate spending in the local community, provision of infrastructure and services. The proposed development would also result in the creation of construction jobs during the build period. It is therefore considered the proposal would contribute albeit to a small degree to economic development and job creation.

14.2 Non material considerations  Council Tax receipts for one dwelling

15.0 Climate Implications

15.1 Energy would be used a result of the production of the building materials and during the construction process, however that is inevitable when building new homes and a balance has to be struck between providing housing to meet needs versus conserving natural resources and minimising energy use.

Page 67 15.2 The plans show that solar panels would be added to the southern roof slope ensuring the home would benefit from a renewable electricity supply. The development would be built to current building regulation standards.

15.3 The development is also considered to be in a sustainable location, despite it being just outside the defined development boundaries of Loders. The site would be within walking distance of all the key facilities which serve the settlement.

16.0 Planning Assessment

Principle of Development

16.1 In terms of the principle of the development, the site is just outside the Defined Development Boundary (DDB) for Loders. Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to “strictly control” development outside DDBs, “having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. SUS2 (iii) does allow development outside of DDBs for open market housing through the re-use of existing rural buildings, however, as the current proposal is for the replacement of an existing rural building, it is accepted that the proposal is not compliant with SUS2. Loders Parish Council has stated that the proposal is also contrary to the Loders Neighbourhood Plan Policy, E5, which sets out that “any new buildings (other than for farming and other land-based rural businesses, or associated rural workers’ housing) and associated land (such as gardens or parking areas) should be located within this development boundary”. It is accepted that a proposal for a new dwelling outside of the DDB would not be compliant with Policy E5 of the Loders Neighbourhood Plan.

16.2 Policy SUS4 (The Replacement Of Buildings Outside Defined Development Boundaries) states “The replacement of a building should be permitted where the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction, and its continuing use would otherwise be consistent with other policies in this plan”; the supporting text makes clear that the continuing use can be either the existing use or an agreed alternative use. The rest of this section will show, the replacement of the existing permanent barn with an alternative use as a dwelling would be deemed sustainable development and therefore agreeable to the Local Planning Authority in a manner that would be line with the flexible provisions of the supporting text of SUS4. It is also important to note at this juncture, that the reuse of the existing agricultural building for an alternative use which SUS4 encourages is not practical in this instance as the conversion of a 400m2 rural building to a house would have an incongruous appearance due to the contrast between its scale and its proposed function as a single residential property. Overall, however, it is acknowledged that SUS4 does require that the continuing use would otherwise be consistent with other policies in this plan and as the development is not compliant with SUS2, then it follows that the proposal also fails SUS4.

16.3 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It is stated in the last published housing supply report that the supply is 4.83 years across the local plan area. This means that para 11 is ‘engaged’ and relevant policies for the supply of housing, including Policies SUS2 and SUS4, may no longer be considered to be up-to-date. Para 11 of the NPPF states:

Page 68

For decision-taking this means: (c) approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; or (d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: (i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposedor (ii) 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. The sub-notes referred to at 6, and 7, are outlined on page 6 of the NPPF. 7 is of relevance and advises: 7 This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites…

16.4 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF goes on to make clear that the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the local neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits provided all of the following apply: (a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan 2 years or less before the date on which the decision is made; (b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement; (c) the local planning authority has at least a 3 year supply of deliverable housing sites (against its 5 year housing supply requirement, including the appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 73); and (d) the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required over the previous 3 years.

16.5 On reviewing Paragraph 14, it is deemed that the Loders Neighbourhood Plan does not meet Paragraph 14 (a) as the plan was ‘made’ in 2016 and therefore is more than 2 years old. In regard to Paragraph 14 (b), though a need for 10 dwellings over the neighbourhood plan period has been identified, no allocated sites have been provided as part of the plan. In regard to Paragraph 14 (c & d), the local planning authority currently meets both targets. Therefore, as the Loders Neighbourhood Plan does not meet all the requirements of Paragraph 14, it cannot be taken that any adverse impact of allowing the proposed development would by virtue of being outside the DDB be deemed to automatically significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

16.6 Returning to Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, it needs to be considered whether the proposal would represent sustainable development and whether there would be any adverse impacts of granting planning consent for the proposed development that

Page 69 would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole”.

16.7 The three dimensions to sustainable development identified in both the West Dorset and Weymouth Local Plan Policy INT1, the NPPF and which form the context that underpins the Loders NP are: economic, social and environmental.

16.8 In terms of performing an economic role, the additional population would help generate spending in the local community, provision of infrastructure and services. It is therefore considered the proposal would satisfy albeit to a small degree the economic dimension of sustainable development.

16.9 With regard to the social role, the provision of one additional home would make a positive albeit small contribution to the district's housing shortage. Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan also supports the increase of dwellings within the village with a target set of 10 dwellings up to 2027 and this target has yet to be reached. Whilst the site does not fall within the DDB, the site is just 20m from the DDB and is in close proximity to the centre of Loders. Key facilities would be just a short walk away with the local primary school a 2 minute walk; the public house which serves the village a 3 minute walk and the village hall only 5 minutes away on foot. These distances are shorter than would be the case for many households which fall within the DDB. In light of these factors, it would be regarded that the proposal would aid the vitality of the local community by promoting the use of local services (thereby complying with paragraph 78 of the NPPF) and could not be deemed an isolated location (thereby complying with paragraph 79 of the NPPF) and thus, satisfying the social dimension of sustainable development.

16.10 On the whole, it is deemed that the proposal would be regarded as sustainable development when assessed against economic and social criteria laid out in the Local Plan’s Strategic Objectives and Policy INT1 (Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development) and the NPPF. As such the principle of the development at the site is considered acceptable despite being outside of the development boundary limits.

16.11 As regards the environment stand of sustainable development, the impact on areas or assets of particular importance (the site falls within the Dorset AONB) as well as the impact on the character of the immediate area and the Loders Conservation Area will be considered in the following section. Following this, matters relating to impacts on neighbouring amenity, highway safety and parking, ecology and drainage will then be reviewed. Overall, consideration is to be given to whether there would be any adverse impacts of permitting the development that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Impact on the character of the area and the AONB

16.12 Policy ENV1 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan which aligns with Loders NP Policy E1, states that the area’s exceptional landscapes and seascapes and geological interest will be protected, and development should be located and designed so that it does not detract from and, where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character. Policy ENV10 and Loders Neighbourhood Plan Policy E4 are highly similar in that they seek to ensure development proposals

Page 70 should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness. ENV12 requires development that achieves a high quality of sustainable and inclusive design. ENV15 makes clear that development should optimise the potential of the site and make efficient use of land.

16.13 The existing agricultural building has a large footprint of approximately 400m2 and has dimensions 31m wide x 19m in depth and 5m in height. The dwelling and garage would in contrast have a footprint of just 125m2 and would be 12m wide x 7m deep x 7.5m high. The dwelling and detached garage would be approximately 100m from Smishops Lane from which it would have no visibility or from New Street Lane, which forms the historic core of Loders. The new home and garage would be screened by existing trees in close proximity which would be to their side and rear elevations; these trees are healthy, established though still young with heights of approximately 11-13m and set upon a raised bank. The proposed development would be further screened by a thick collection of trees to the south, outside the red line of the application site but within the applicant’s ownership and a further line of trees to the west, again in the applicant’s ownership. A Tree Plan was submitted as part of the application which showed that no trees would be removed; a condition would be added as recommended by the Council’s Tree Officer to ensure all works at the site comply with the submitted Tree Plan. Though the retention of all existing trees has been confirmed, a further condition relating to hard and soft landscaping would be imposed to ensure a high quality visual appearance to the overall development. In light of the set back, enclosed nature of the site and the reduction in the footprint of built development at the site, the development would have no undue visual prominence within the wider area or the AONB. The heavily screened character of the site is the primary change to the character of the site from the time of the previous application for a dwelling at the site in 1989 when the site was more open than it is today.

16.14 Furthermore, the parcel of land subject of the application has not been used in conjunction with the wider farm holding for approximately 15 years, and despite the present barn, the immediate setting with its large flat grassy area results in the appearance that is domesticated rather than agrarian. The erection of a dwelling at the site would therefore not represent an undue change to the existing character of the site.

16.15 The AONB Officer was consulted as part of the application and deemed that the proposal would have a low visual impact while any wider landscape impact could be mitigated by the addition of a condition limiting the use of lighting at the site.

16.16 The dwelling would be of a traditional gabled design and formed of natural materials, namely, stone, slate and timber. The design of the dwelling has been informed by local distinctiveness and includes details such as chimneys set to either end of the ridge, an open porch set to centre of a broad two storey frontage and a fenestration layout where larger window openings occupy the ground floor with smaller openings at first floor. The design, scale and use of local, natural external materials would be in-keeping with the overall traditional aesthetic and rural village location. The proposed materials would be submitted to the Local Planning Authority before use at the site and this would be secured by condition.

Impact upon the Heritage Assets:

Page 71

Heritage - summary of the Development Plan and other material considerations

16.17 Policy ENV4 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan expresses the need for the impact of development on a designated heritage asset and its setting to be thoroughly assessed against the significance of the asset. Development should conserve and where appropriate enhance the significance.

16.18 Policy ENV4 takes a similar approach as the NPPF as outlined in paragraphs 189 – 202, insofar as it requires proposals to justify any harm to a heritage asset and demonstrate the overriding public benefits which would outweigh the damage to that asset or its setting. ENV4 says that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset, the greater justification and public benefit that will be required before the application could gain support. Significance is defined in the NPPF as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic.

16.19 Loders Neighbourhood Plan Policy E4 emphasis the need for all proposals for built development to reflect “the character of the Conservation Area and respects the rural character of Loders Parish”. Loders NP policy E2 seeks to ensure that new development does not harm special landscape and historic features.

16.20 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention is given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance conservation areas when making planning decisions. This means that significant weight should be given to any harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Assessment of the proposal upon the Uploders and Loders Conservation Area

16.21 The Conservation Area extends north of the ribbon development of Loders to encompass Waddon Hill, the upper slopes of which are characterised by its mix of woodland and strip lynchets (medieval earth terraces). The existing farm building sits at the bottom of this hill and is a modern, utilitarian structure which due to its functional design makes no notable contribution to the Conservation Area.

16.22 The Parish Council directly approached the Conservation team for an initial Conservation view, this then led to a formal consultation being carried out with the Conservation Officer attending site to evaluate the setting impact. Following this site visit, the officer expressed no objection to the proposal. The comments of the Conservation Officer are as follows:

“The site is well set back from the street and due to the gradient of the land, any views from the street into the site and of the proposed development will be generally restricted by this, with the existing house West Combe being far more prominent. The site is set within a particularly sheltered and rather unique spot, with the natural landscape form restricting outward views and sightlines from the village or the wider setting behind. As such, development within this coombe will have little, if no impact on the Conservation Area or the surrounding agricultural setting of the AONB or the historic lynchetts due to separation due to the natural landscape form.

Page 72 This area also appears to have been in the past detached from any former farm land, the site already partially domesticated by the construction of West Combe in the 1990s at the entrance to the coombe, and despite the present barn, the immediate setting with its large flat grassy area results in the appearance of one of residential rather than agrarian character. The new dwelling, due to its rather semi-isolated character, will only have inter-connecting views with the existing house”.

16.23 It is therefore concluded that the introduction of a moderately sized dwelling to replace the large existing structure along with the retention of the heavily screened character of the site would ensure that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the character of the Loders Conservation Area.

Impact on agricultural enterprise

16.24 Policy ENV8 of the Local Plan states that safeguarding farmland for future local food and energy crop production is an important consideration in planning.

16.25 The AONB Officer did query the agricultural impacts of the development and whether it would create a need for a similar mass of agricultural buildings elsewhere. The applicant has since provided a supporting document which states that the existing barn has been redundant for approximately 15 years with the wider farm holding farmed by a local tenant farmer; the current tenant owns agricultural buildings and land of his own directly adjacent to the holding of the applicant. The access currently utilised by the existing tenant to the surrounding farmland within the ownership of the applicant is from Waddon Way to the north-west; this access ensures there is no requirement for current or future tenants to access the farmland from the proposed site of development. The site would represent a small parcel of land removed from the wider holding and is a parcel which is not currently used as part of the agricultural enterprise and has become domesticated in appearance over the past 15 years. In light of these factors, it is not considered that the change of use of land from agricultural to residential would conflict with ENV8 of the Local Plan and it is considered that the queries raised by the AONB Officer have been answered in a manner that is acceptable.

Impact on neighbouring amenity

16.26 Policy ENV16 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan seeks to ensure that developments would protect the amenity of users of neighbouring buildings and land uses and provide a satisfactory environment for current and future occupants.

16.27 The proposed dwelling would be approximately 50m from the nearest neighbouring home ‘West Coombe’ and would be largely screened from it by the trees which grow to the south and east of the site. In light of these factors, it is considered that the proposal would have no undue impact on residential amenity.

Highway safety and parking

16.28 The dwelling would be served by the existing tarmacadam road that serves ‘West Combe’ and which joins Smishops Lane to the south. The use of the road by two

Page 73 dwellings would not represent undue intensification and with the removal of the agricultural buildings, the likelihood of large farm machinery utilising the road would be reduced. The proposal has been considered by the Highways Officer who expressed no objection. The access into the site would be 5.5m wide allowing vehicles to enter and leave simultaneously. The existing hardstanding at the site which sits to the front of the existing agricultural building would be retained and this with the addition of a 2 bay garage would be more than sufficient to allow vehicles to leave in forward gear while providing up to six parking spaces. The concerns of the Parish Council regarding the increased pressure on road infrastructure in and around Loders are noted, however, it is not considered that one additional dwelling would cause further undue traffic and the existing road damage highlighted is beyond the remit of a planning application for a single dwelling. Moreover, though the application form submitted confirms that 6 parking spaces would be available, it should not be taken from this that it is likely that 6 vehicles would regularly use the site considering the application is for only a 3 bedroom dwelling.

Biodiversity

16.29 Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan and Loders NP Policy E3 in a similar fashion, states that proposals that conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported. Opportunities to incorporate and enhance biodiversity in and around developments will be encouraged. International, national and local wildlife sites must be safeguarded from development unless there is no alternative acceptable solution.

16.30 An ecological survey and Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) was submitted and reviewed by the Natural Environment Team (NET). No objection was received and a Certificate of Approval was subsequently issued. The proposed development would be conditioned to be carried out in accordance with the submitted BMEP.

Flood Risk and Drainage

16.31 Policy COM10 makes clear that 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. Policy ENV5 states that new development or the intensification of existing uses should be planned to avoid risk of flooding.

16.32 The new dwelling would see the disposal of sewage via a septic tank and an informative would be added to the end of this report to ensure the applicant is aware of the correct guidance in regard to the installation and use of a septic tank. The site is outside of Flood Zones 2 and 3 and is not in an area at high risk of surface water flooding; the Technical Services Team was consulted and expressed no objection. The proposal would see surface water drain away to soakaways and considering the significant reduction in the footprint of built development at the site compared to existing, it is concluded that this development would meet the requirements of ENV5.

Affordable Housing

16.33 Policy HOUS1 requires all new dwellings to make a 35% contribution

Page 74 towards affordable housing. National planning policy as is now set out in the NPPF 2019 establishes thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought.

16.34 In the light of changes to national policy, affordable housing contributions will not normally be sought on sites of schemes of less than 10 dwellings or with a site area of less than 0.5 ha outside designated rural areas. As this site falls below these thresholds an affordable housing contribution is not required.

CIL

16.35 The adopted charging schedule applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set at £0 per sq. m. CIL rate. The proposed development is not considered CIL liable as the dwelling would not represent an increase in Gross Internal Area (GIA) over and above the floor area of the existing barn.

17.0 Conclusion

17.1 Overall, it is considered that there are no material harmful effects that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the social, economic and environmental benefits of the development, as detailed in the main body of the report. The proposed development is not within but is adjacent to the village DDB and has good pedestrian connectivity to the facilities on offer in Loders thereby aiding the vitality of the village. In the light of the current housing land supply position, the proposal to replace the existing agricultural building would make a small but positive contribution to the supply of housing where there are no other obvious and adverse planning impacts to justify a refusal of planning permission.

17.2 The proposed development is acceptable and therefore recommended for approval.

18. RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Proposed Garage Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 19 039 05A received on 12/06/2019 Proposed Ground Floor plans and Elevations - 19 039 03C received on 15/06/2020 First Floor plans and Elevations - 19 039 04D received on 15/06/2020 Site Location and Block Plan - 19 039 01C received on 15/06/2020

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Page 75 2 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3 Prior to development above damp proof course level, details and samples of all external facing materials for the walls, including the mix, colour, finish and extent of the pointing to be used, and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in accordance with such materials as have been agreed.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.

4 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Hellis Tree Consultancy Tree Plan (dated December 2019).

Reason: To ensure that trees which contribute to the character and appearance of the area, and are to be retained, are not adversely affected by the development proposals

5 No occupation shall commence until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following details: (a) size, species and positions for new trees and plants, (b) boundary treatments, (c) surfacing materials (including roadways, drives, patios and paths) and (d) any retained planting. (e) a detailed programme of implementation Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season either with the same tree/plant as has previously been approved, or with other trees or plants of a species and size that have first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape

Page 76 setting to the development

6 The Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) signed by the Natural Environment Team on 12/02/2020 shall be implemented in full in accordance with the specified timetables in the BMP. The dwelling shall not come into first occupation until all mitigation measures have been carried out and thereafter shall be retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To minimise impacts on biodiversity.

7 No new external lighting, other than that shown on the approved plans, shall be installed within the boundary of the application site unless in accordance with details that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location, number, luminance, angle of illumination and type of each luminaire or light source and a lux diagram showing the light spill from the scheme. The lighting shall thereafter be installed, operated and maintained operated in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid adverse impacts to the dark night skies special quality of the AONB.

NOTES TO APPLICANT 1. National Planning Policy Framework Statement

In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive approach to development proposals and is focused on providing sustainable development. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:  offering a pre-application advice service, and  as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

In this case:  The applicant/agent was updated of any issues and provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer.

2. Septic tanks should only be considered if it can be clearly demonstrated that discharging into a public sewer to be treated at a public sewage treatment works or a package sewage treatment plant is not feasible (taking into account cost and/or practicability). Details regarding the Environment Agency’s formal requirements in respect of package sewage treatment plants and septic tanks can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/permits-you-need-for-septic-tanks

3. The proposed use of soakaways at the site for surface water drainage must be

Page 77 in accordance with Building Regulations Part H (H3 - Section 3).

Page 78 Agenda Item 5d

WP/20/00361/OBL Land south of Louviers Road, Weymouth. Modification of planning obligations on Section 106 Agreement dated 20th December 2018 (original planning approval WP/17/00832/FUL) Applicant name – Sage Housing Limited Case Officer – Bob Burden Ward Member(s) – Cllr Tony Ferrari, Cllr Louie O’Leary

The application is brought to committee in accordance with Section 151 of the Officer Scheme of Delegation.

1.0 Summary of Recommendation:

1.1 Delegate authority to the nominated officer to modify the S106 agreement dated 20th December 2018, to

- modify mortgagee in possession clauses by changing the definition of charge and paras 10.1 to 10.3 of schedule 3 in line with the Securitisation Working Groups standard mortgage in possession clause,

- and seek deletion of para 12 of Schedule 3 indicating they cannot be bound to reinvest in the same local authority area.

2.0 Reason for the recommendation:

2.1 It is considered that the proposed modification to the S106 would have an acceptable impact.

3.0 Key planning issues

Issue Conclusion Modification of s106 obligations The proposed modification to the S106 agreement is considered acceptable.

4.0 Description of Site

4.1 The S106 agreement dated 20 December 2018 is associated with the application WP/17/00832/FUL for the erection of 114 dwellings, creation of a new access, landscaping, public open space, parking and associated works.

5.0 Description of Proposal

5.1 This application seeks to modify the S106 agreement in relation to identified affordable housing issues as explained further below.

Page 79

6.0 Relevant Planning History

Application No. Proposal Decision Decision Date WP/17/00832/FUL Erection of 114 dwellings, new access, Approved 20/12/18 landscaping, public open space.

7.0 Relevant Constraints

Majority of site subject to Local Plan residential development allocation policy WEY11 Land off Louviers Road.

8.0 Consultations

Housing Enabling Team Leader – Support. (Full comments set out in planning issues section)

Weymouth Town Council –Object-Members support the development of 40 affordable houses at this location. However, members object to the part loss of investment s detailed in para 12 of the agreement. Members are concerned that affordable housing or investment would be lost or could be moved to another area of the country.

9.0 Representations

9.1 No comments received at the time of report writing.

10.0 Relevant Policies

West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan

HOUS1 – Affordable Housing

National Planning Policy Framework

4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes

11.0 Human rights

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

Page 80 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.

12.0 Public Sector Equalities Duty

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 neds of other people  Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.

13.0 Financial benefits

13.1 In this instance, this application could result in shared ownership receipts being reinvested outside the local area.

14.0 Climate Implications

14.1 The proposed modification to the S106 is not considered to alter the climate implications of the development.

15.0 Planning Assessment

15.1 The legal agreement (s106) includes provisions relating to affordable housing. The applicant Sage Housing are intending to take on the 40 affordable homes from the developer Persimmon Homes Limited.

15.2 Sage Housing are seeking to change the definition of charge and paras 10.1 to 10.3 of Schedule 3 in line with the Securitisation Working Groups standard mortgage in possession clause. They also seek deletion of para 12 of Schedule 3 indicating they cannot be bound to reinvest in the same local authority area; Sage are committed to continuing to purchase and provide affordable housing but cannot be limited to where investments are made as sites must be commercially viable in order for Sage to continue providing affordable housing.

15.3 Housing Enabling Team Leaders Summary of the Request-

Page 81 The main purpose of the amendment is to bring the clauses in the S106 up to date with the current requirements of the banks and lenders.

15.4 The Registered Provider (RP) will want to borrow money against these homes to fund future developments. In order to do this there must be a route for the lender to be able to acquire and then dispose of the properties to recover their funds. This is an important source of funding for the RPs.

15.5 These clauses provide security to the lenders but no affordable home has been lost due to these provisions that I am aware of. The RP is regulated by the Regulator of Social Housing to ensure they remain viable. When an RP has been in financial difficulties in the past the Regulator has ensured they are acquired or merged with another RP so no affordable homes are lost.

15.6 The other issue mentioned by Sage is in regard to shared ownership stair- casing payments. Some of the affordable homes will be for shared ownership. If an owner of a shared ownership home wants to acquire a larger percentage of the home they can purchase this from RP. The current S106 agreement requires Sage to look to spend these funds in the Weymouth and Portland Area. As Sage are a national organisation they want to be free of these restrictions. We do not object to this but will continue to work with all RPs to ensure funds are spent in our area. This will not affect the allocation of these homes and local people will still have priority.

15.7 Housing Enabling Team Leaders Formal Comments- I have no objections to what is being proposed and we have agreed this in the past. Most Registered Providers wold want similar clauses in the s106 agreements. If the clauses in our agreements stopped RPs borrowing money against their new homes they will become reluctant to invest their time and funds in our area.

15.8 The other issue was in regard to shared ownership receipts. These are from when tenants of shared ownership schemes purchase equity in their homes. The Government expects these funds to be recycled into other affordable housing developments. As most RPs cover a wide geographical area they want flexibility in how to spend the funds. The Government has been wanting to make sure these get spent on appropriate developments rather than waiting for projects in certain areas. This does mean that these receipts could be spent in other areas, although we have also benefitted from this approach in the past.

16.0 Conclusion

16.1 In the light of the comments made by the Housing Enabling Team Leader the requests made are considered acceptable. The officer has also explained why these changes are necessary in the light of the Town Councils comments. The agreed modifications would not change the amount of affordable housing

Page 82 provision required, and given the comments of the Housing Enabling Team Leader and his support for the changes it is considered that they are acceptable.

17.0 Recommendation

17.1 Delegate authority to the nominated officer to modify the S106 agreement dated 20 December 2018, to

- and seek deletion of para 12 of Schedule 3 indicating they cannot be bound to reinvest in the same local authority area.

Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5e

Report to Committee to Modify a Planning Permission under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the planning consent WP/14/00330/OUT, WP/16/00388/VOC and WP/19/00184/VOC

Site Address: Redundant Buildings at, Bumpers Lane, Portland DT5 1HY

1. Background to the report:

1.1 Outline planning consent WP/14/00330/OUT was granted on 24 June 2015, on the above site for the demolition of existing redundant industrial buildings and erection of residential dwellings (approx. 64). Conditions 4, 5 and 6 of that permission read as follows:

4. Before the commencement of development, a further investigation and risk assessment shall be completed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. The investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to human health, property (existing or proposed, including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes), adjoining land, groundwaters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

5. Before the commencement of development, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the

Page 85 Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

6. Before the commencement of development, the approved remediation scheme shall be carried out unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

1.2 A variation of condition (VOC) application WP/16/00388/VOC of the outline permission was approved to allow the demolition of the redundant buildings before the submission of details of reserved matters. Following the grant of the VOC a reserved matters application was submitted WP/17/00017/RES for the erection of 71 dwellings. A further variation of condition application WP/19/00184/VOC has been submitted and whilst it has a resolution to approve the planning permission has not yet been completed as the S106 agreement is yet to be completed.

2. Section 97

2.1 Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out that:

(1) If it appears to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify –

(a) any permission (including permission in principle) to develop land granted on an application made under this Part, or (b) any permission in principle granted by a development order,

Page 86

The authority may by order revoke or modify the permission to such extend as they consider expedient.

3. Proposed Modification

3.1 A compliance with condition application WP/18/00364/CWC was submitted to request confirmation of compliance which included conditions 5 and 6 as set out above. As part of the application WPA Contaminated Land Consultants were consulted on the submitted information. As part of an initial response WPA set out and agreed with the Developer that the property deeds and information packs should prohibit future extensions and/or significant structural alteration of dwellings and/or significant modification of private gardens and soft landscaped areas within the development, which could compromise the various capping systems and remediation works undertaken across the site. This was carried out and the covenants in the deeds checked by the Council’s Legal team.

3.2 Concerns were raised though whether this would be enough to ensure that all future buyers of the properties were aware of the risks of future works which would disturb the ground below the buildings, gardens and soft landscaping areas and the capping systems which have been agreed with WPA and implemented by the developer. WPA confirmed that the site is a sensitive site and future owners of new properties should not be able to undertake works which would compromise the various capping systems across the site, as to do so runs the potential risk of releasing asbestos fibres into dwellings and gardens (including vegetables grown on them) These can be particularly dangerous to young children and vulnerable persons. WPA therefore confirmed that it was essential that PD rights in relation to works that would require foundations are removed for the properties. This would prevent accidental disturbance of the capping systems without the prior input and control of the Local Planning Authority and its experts in respect of contaminated land and would provide protection to public health and the environment.

3.3 In any event the Council could not enforce covenants in land transfers between developers and house purchasers and in future the developer may have no interest in enforcing such covenants.

3.4 The Council’s legal team advise however that:

a. Removal of permitted development (PD) rights would have to be done through an Article 4 Direction. The proper use of such directions is to protect the visual amenity of the area. b. In any event an Article 4 Direction removing PD rights will not protect against works which are not sufficient to constitute development c. The proper means of control is either through a planning condition or s106 obligation. As owners must join in to s106 obligations, and some plots

Page 87 have been sold, a Section 106 obligation is not a practical proposition leaving only the planning condition option. d. This could be done by an application by the developer under s73 of the Act, but having sold properties based on the existing planning conditions he is unwilling to entertain this.

3.4 Given the above the only way in which the Council can impose controls against breaching the protective measures is to modify the planning permission under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The modification would include the following new condition:

No groundworks shall take place at a depth more than 1.0m below ground level of all buildings of the development or at a depth more than 0.60m below ground level for all private gardens, all privately owned external areas and all other areas of soft landscaping and groundworks shall not compromise the high visibility membrane present 1.0m below ground level of all buildings and 0.60m below ground level for all private garden areas, all privately owned external areas and all other areas of soft landscaping. For the avoidance of doubt this restriction shall apply to any works permitted pursuant to Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) (England) Order 2015 as amended or any Order which replaces the same.

REASON: To protect the health of the persons living at the properties.

3.5 The Section 97 procedure requires confirmation (after hearing any objections) by the Secretary of State. Given that the object is to protect humans against the health effects of land contamination it is hoped that the Secretary of State would confirm the order under section 97. However, there is obviously no guarantee of this.

3.6 The developer and affected owners could also claim compensation for the loss of value of their properties, however:

a. they have already given private covenants to similar effect, and b. they can still develop their properties provided they do not breach the condition

3.7 It is hoped that the compensation (if any) would be limited.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Despite the possible costs of making the Order (including a public hearing/inquiry) and the possibility of compensation officers consider that protecting the health of future residents of the site is the paramount

Page 88 consideration. To achieve this in a way enforceable by the Council, the planning permission needs to be modified to restrict ground works that can be undertaken.

4.2 It is also considered that including this modification on the permission will help to flag up the issue of safety and contaminated land on any land charges searches undertaken on purchases of the properties both now and in the future.

4.3 The modification is not considered to be to the detriment of the developer as the modification mirrors the restrictions already imposed in the deeds of the properties by the developer.

5. Recommendation

5.1 That Members agree to the modifying of the outline planning permission WP/14/00330/OUT and WP/16/00388/VOC and to include the condition in respect of WP/19/00184/VOC by imposing the following new condition on such permissions:

REASON: To protect the health of the persons living at the properties.

Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

UPDATE REPORT - POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION HOMESTEAD FARM, MAIN STREET, BOTHENHAMPTON, BRIDPORT, DT6 4BJ Planning Committee date: 8th October 2020

Case Ref: WD/D/19/003186

Breach of planning: Demolition of original farmhouse and Erection of a dwelling not in accordance with planning approval WD/D/17/002888 as amended via the approved non material amendment approvals WD/D/19/000355/NMA & WD/D/19/000624/NMA

Location: HOMESTEAD FARM, MAIN STREET, BOTHENHAMPTON, BRIDPORT, DT6 4BJ

Case Officer: Darren Rogers

______

1 Full details of the breach of planning control 1.1 The carrying out of operational development comprising the “Demolition of original farmhouse and Erection of a dwelling” not in accordance with planning approval WD/D/17/002888 Approved April 2018 as amended via the approved non material amendment approvals set out under:

 WD/D/19/000355/NMA - Non-material amendment to Planning Permission No. WD/D/17/002888 for changes to external materials and the omission of rooflights, photovoltaic panels and external staircase. Approved March 2019  WD/D/19/000624/NMA - Amendment to planning permission reference WD/D/17/002888 - Change to dormer windows on west and east elevation. Approved March 2019

2 The site and surrounding areas 2.1 This is as described in paras 5.1 - 5.3 of the attached report to Planning Committee held on 12th August 2020 as regards application number WD/D/19/003186. That application sought retrospective planning permission for the variation of Condition 1 (the plans list) on application approval ref WD/D/17/002888/FUL – described as “Demolition of original farmhouse in Conservation Area. Erection of 1.no. new 4 bed low carbon house”.

3 Relevant planning and enforcement history 3.1 The following applications set out the planning history of this site in chronological order.

WD/D/17/002888/FUL - Demolition of original farmhouse in Conservation Area. Erection of 1.no. new 4 bed low carbon house. Approved April 2018

WD/D/18/001167/CWC - Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 9 (proposed access onto Duck Street is commenced full construction details) & 10 (details of the days and hours that operations shall take place on site during the demolition and construction phases of the development and details of site operative parking arrangements) of planning approval WD/D/17/0028. Approved Dec 2018

Page 91

WD/D/18/002892/CWC - Request for confirmation of compliance with conditions 3 (details and samples of all facing and roofing materials including details of the proposed glass (to be of a non-reflective type) to be installed in the rear lower extensions , 4 (proposed heritage greenhouse; compost bins; wooden shed; mobile chicken caravan; outdoor shelter; and tool shed) & 6 (proposed drainage works (foul and surface water) of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 - Approved Dec 2018

Jan 2019 Enf Investigation opened - Alleged construction of building higher than approved.

WD/D/19/000355/NMA - Non-material amendment to Planning Permission No. WD/D/17/002888 for changes to external materials and the omission of rooflights, photovoltaic panels and external staircase. Approved March 2019

WD/D/19/000624/NMA - Amendment to planning permission reference WD/D/17/002888 - Change to dormer windows on west and east elevation. Approved March 2019

WD/D/19/000782/CWC - Request for confirmation of compliance with condition 3 (Further to previous submissions of tile samples; the Phalempin Single Camber Clay Plain Roof Tile - Val De Siene (104) size 170mm x 270mm; is considered to be acceptable) of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 Approved May 2019

WD/D/19/001329/CWC - Request for confirmation of compliance with condition 3 (Proposed materials have been agreed previously except for the non-reflective glass to be installed in the rear lower extensions. The Guardian clear float glass with a Guardian Clarity low reflectance coating as submitted is considered to be acceptable) of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 - Approved Oct 2019

WD/D/19/002277/NMA - Amendment to planning permission WD/D/17/002888 - alterations to height and width of dwelling (as part of Enf Investigation) Refused Oct 2019

WD/D/19/002463/CWC - Request for confirmation of compliance with condition 3 (The render mix to be a traditional lime render with a mix of 1:3 Non-Hydrated Lime with washed sand is acceptable of planning approval WD/D/17/002888. Approved 30th October 2019

WD/D/19/003186 - Demolition of original farmhouse in Conservation Area. Erection of 1.no. new 4 bed low carbon house (with variation of condition 1 of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 to amend approved plans) Refused 13th August 2020

4 Officer’s investigation and evidence 4.1 As Members will be aware at their Committee meeting on 12th August 2020, retrospective planning permission ref WD/D/19/003186 was refused for the “Demolition of original farmhouse in Conservation Area. Erection of 1.no. new 4 bed low carbon house (with variation of condition 1 of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 to amend approved plans)”.

4.2 Permission was refused for the following 2 reasons:

1 The proposal is a visually dominating and prominent built form of development, out of character to the area. The site is located within the Conservation Area and where the wider

Page 92 setting of that area is affected such that the proposal does not ‘preserve’ or ‘enhance’ that area as is required and set out given the statutory Section 72 test of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. On that basis it has an adverse impact on the existing Conservation Area character and harms the Conservation Area character and appearance. That harm would be less than substantial but there are no wider public benefits arising from the proposal that would outweigh that harm in the planning balance. As such the proposal would not be in accordance with Policies ENV4, ENV10 or ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) ; Policies HT2, D1 & D8 of the Bridport Neighbourhood Plan; nor paragraph 127 and section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and in particular para 192 which states:

In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

2 The proposed development by reason of its mass, scale and bulk has an unduly dominating and overbearing impact when viewed from existing neighbouring properties in Main Street and Duck Street. As a result it sits uncomfortably in relation to those neighbouring occupiers and is detrimental to their amenity (outlook). Its mass, scale and bulk is also detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Policies ENV10; ENV12 & ENV16 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015); Policies D1 & D8 of the Bridport Neighbourhood Plan; and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and in particular paragraph 127 which states amongst other things that decisions should ensure that developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

5 Relevant planning policy This was as set out in the 12th August 2020 Planning Committee report under application number WD/D/19/003186 and is set out here again in full with the policies that were referred to in the reasons for refusal in bold:

5.1 National Planning Policy Framework 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 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

5.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) INT1. Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development ENV2. Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest ENV2. Wildlife and Habitats ENV4. Heritage Assets ENV10. The Landscape and Townscape Setting ENV11. The Pattern of Streets and Spaces ENV12. The Design and Positioning Of Buildings ENV13. Achieving High Levels of Environmental Performance ENV15. Efficient and Appropriate Use of Land ENV16. Amenity

Page 93 SUS1. The Level of Economic and Housing Growth SUS2. Distribution of Development HOUS1. Affordable Housing COM1. Making Sure New Development Makes Suitable Provision for Community Infrastructure COM7. Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network COM9. Parking Standards in New Development COM10. The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure CPM11. Renewable Energy Development

5.3 Bridport Neighbourhood Plan Climate Change POLICY CC1 - Publicising Carbon Footprint POLICY CC2 - Energy and Carbon Emissions POLICY CC3 - Energy Generation to Offset Predicted Carbon Emissions

Access & Movement POLICY AM1 - Promotion of Active Travel Modes POLICY AM2 - Managing Vehicular Traffic

Housing POLICY H7 - Custom-Build and Self-Build Homes

Heritage POLICY HT1 - Non Designated Heritage Assets POLICY HT2 - Public Realm

Landscape POLICY L2 - Biodiversity POLICY L5 - Enhancement of the Environment

Design for Living POLICY D1 - Harmonising with the Site POLICY D2 - Programme of Consultation POLICY D5 - Efficient Use of Land POLICY D6 - Definition of Streets and Spaces POLICY D7 - Creation of Secure Areas POLICY D8 - Contributing to the Local Character POLICY D9 - Environmental Performance (see also Policies CC2, CC3) POLICY D11 - Building for Life

5.4 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009)

Village Design Statements (VDSs) previously adopted as SPG in West Dorset, which remain relevant and may be material considerations in planning decisions include:

• Bothenhampton: includes parish plan (2003)

WDDC Landscape Character Assessment February 2009 – Urban Area

Bothenhampton Conservation Area Appraisal

Page 94

Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: A Framework for the Future AONB Management Plan 2019 – 2024

6 Enforcement action available and reasons for the taking of formal action. 6.1 As the previous application has been refused and was retrospective in nature consideration now needs to be considered as to whether it is expedient to take enforcement action; and if so what action is required to remedy any planning harm.

6.2 Officers have already informed the applicants that following the Committee’s decision on 12th August, that further construction work at the site should cease until any planning appeal against the refused application has been determined and that any further work that is carried out is done entirely at their own risk pending the outcome of any such appeal.

6.3 The applicants’ agent has replied (August 2020) stating that he is instructed to make a Section 78 planning appeal and that the applicants acknowledge the degree of local concern about the scheme. Therefore, they are looking at ceasing work, while the appeal runs its course but they do not wish to see the building, or the plants deteriorate. The have set out a schedule of works (attached to this report) to be carried out to make the building properly secure and weathertight and to put it into a state so that it does not deteriorate, while the appeal is determined. Once these are completed (due at the end of September 2020), the applicants have agreed that no further work to complete the building would be undertaken until the appeal has been determined. Your officers have already agreed to these works as this is considered to be a pragmatic approach to enable the building to be made watertight and safe, prior to all further works ceasing, pending the appeal outcome. Officers have also stressed to the applicants agent the fact that these remain to be carried out entirely at the applicants own risk pending any appeal outcome. They have also agreed to let us know if (and hopefully there will not be) there is any slippage in the September timetable.

6.4 Given the above, and setting aside the appeal, the Council need to consider at this stage whether to commence formal enforcement action which could run alongside the Section 78 appeal.

6.5 It must be remembered that planning permission has already been granted for a replacement dwelling at this site which does offer a significant material planning consideration fall-back position. That approval was for a development permitted under ref number WD/D/17/002888 (Approved April 2018) as amended via the approved non material amendment approvals set out under:

• WD/D/19/000355/NMA - Non-material amendment to Planning Permission No. WD/D/17/002888 for changes to external materials and the omission of rooflights, photovoltaic panels and external staircase. Approved March 2019 • WD/D/19/000624/NMA - Amendment to planning permission reference WD/D/17/002888 - Change to dormer windows on west and east elevation. Approved March 2019

6.6 On 12 August, the Committee concluded that the changes requested under the most recent application WD/D/19/003186 which sought to deal in part retrospectively) with changes from the originally approved application (as amended) by the 2 NMA approvals listed above) are unacceptable for the reasons set out at paragraph 4.2 above.

Page 95 6.7 Both of the above reasons are supported by relevant development plan and national policy references as are set out in this report.

6.8 It is therefore falls to Committee to consider the need for, and scope of, any enforcement action and the need to consider the issue of expediency having regard to the development plan and any other material planning considerations. A number of options are available.

Option 1 – That no enforcement action be taken at this stage.

6.9 This would be pending the outcome of the Section 78 appeal. Members need to take account of the planning permission that has already been granted and the applicant’s agent has indicated that there will be an appeal. Of course there would be delays that could occur if enforcement action is taken only after the planning appeal is determined in favour of the Council but if the outcome of any such appeal is that it is allowed then no formal enforcement action would then be necessary. However an Inspector’s view on any subsequent planning appeal will help to inform what formal enforcement action may be appropriate, if any, particularly noting that Inspectors often give a view in their formal decision letters as to which aspects of a development they consider acceptable, and which are not. By waiting for the outcome of any planning appeal, the Council will have a more defensible position as regards to any formal enforcement action we then decide to take. The matter would be brought back to Committee as soon as possible if permission is refused on the appeal.

Option 2 - That enforcement action be taken requiring demolition of the whole building

6.10 This would require demolition of the whole of the building as is now built and that it be replaced with the dwelling as was approved under ref WD/D/17/002888 (Approved April 2018) as amended via the approved non material amendment approvals. Officers’ advice is that it would not be expedient to require demolition of the whole building as it is capable of being altered to address the reasons for refusal of the latest application and more closely match the approved building.

Option 3 - That enforcement action be taken requiring alteration of specific elements

6.11– Officers consider that the Committee’s reasons for refusal could be properly addressed by requiring that only certain elements of the building are changed such as the roof heights of the building as was approved compared to the height of the building as built; and/or that the footprint of the building as built is altered to that of the footprint of the building as approved.

6.12 It is not considered that for example the vehicular accesses onto Main Street and Duck Street are unacceptable in planning terms notwithstanding the fact that they are technically not in accordance with the approved scheme – these are considered to be minor transgressions that result in no significant planning harm to the character of the area; neighbour amenity; or to highway safety given that there were no highway objections to the proposals and this did not form a reason for refusal.

6.13 Nor is it considered that the alterations to the landscape proposals main to the south of the main building that includes a domestic pond and ancillary buildings namely the Heritage greenhouse; barbeque shelter; field shelter; tool and lawnmower store; open wood & trailer store; compost bins and wood shed; and chicken coop all as part of the wider rear garden area raise any significant planning harm to the character of the area and in fact were approved under

Page 96 compliance with condition application WD/D/18/002892/CWC - Request for confirmation of compliance with condition 4 (proposed heritage greenhouse; compost bins; wooden shed; mobile chicken caravan; outdoor shelter; and tool shed) of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 - Approved Dec 2018.

7 Human rights and Equality considerations 7.1 The provisions of the European Convention on Human rights including the following articles; Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property) Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination are relevant when considering enforcement action. These rights are not absolute and need to be balanced against the wider public interest. Local planning authorities have a duty to enforce planning legislation in a proportionate way. Enforcement action should be necessary in the public interest of upholding the integrity of the planning system to address the planning harm caused by the unauthorised development, and proportionate to the harm which it is identified that the breach is causing.

7.2 The recipient of any such notice will have the opportunity to submit an appeal against an Enforcement Notice.

7.3 Consideration has also been given to the Council’s duties under the Equalities Act 2010, to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or other conduct prohibited by this Act, to advance equality of opportunities and fostering good relations between those who share characteristics protected by the Act and those who do not share them. Taking enforcement action would not conflict with the Council’s duties under this Act.

8 Statutory authority. Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

9 Financial implications The financial implications include staff resources, the costs of any subsequent appeal/prosecution and any legal representation required. These costs will be met by the existing budget.

A Costs award to the applicant could be an issue if an application for Costs is made by the applicant for any unreasonable behaviour of the Council in seeking to defend the appeal and/or issue formal enforcement action but this is unknown at this stage. 10 Recommendation

Committee are requested to consider the options available and to determine what action they consider is necessary to remedy the breach of planning control. However Officers recommend to Members that Option 1 is approved and we hold any formal enforcement action in abeyance, until such time as any Section 78 planning appeal is determined.

The reason for this is that the Inspector’s view on any subsequent planning appeal will help to inform what formal enforcement action may be appropriate, if any, particularly noting that Inspectors often give a view in their formal decision letters as to which aspects of a

Page 97 development they consider acceptable, and which are not. By waiting for the outcome of any planning appeal, The Council will have a more defensible position as regards to any formal enforcement action we then decide to take.

Darren Rogers Planning Enforcement Manager

Page 98

1 APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/19/003186

APPLICATION SITE: HOMESTEAD FARM, MAIN STREET, BOTHENHAMPTON, BRIDPORT, DT6 4BJ PROPOSAL: Demolition of original farmhouse in Conservation Area. Erection of 1.no. new 4 bed low carbon house (with variation of condition 1 of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 to amend approved plans) APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Hughes CASE OFFICER: Darren Rogers WARD MEMBER(S): Cllrs Bolwell/Clayton/Williams

The application is reported to Committee as agreed by the Head of Panning given that the site has a contentious background and given the level of representations from local residents.

2 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Grant subject to conditions.

3 Reason for the recommendation:

• The location is considered to be sustainable being within the defined development boundary of Bothenhampton. • Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is considered acceptable . • Impact on the character and appearance of the AONB is considered acceptable. • There is not considered to be any significant adverse effect on neighbouring residential amenity. • There is not considered to be any sever harm to highway safety with no highway objections.

4.0 Key planning issues

Issue Conclusion Principle of Development Presumption in favour of sustainable development being within the defined development boundary of Bothenhampton .

Design Design and scale considered appropriate for the site.

Conservation Area/AONB Impact on both the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and AONB is acceptable.

Neighbouring Amenity There is not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring

Page 99 residential amenity.

Highways There is not considered to be any sever harm to highway safety with no highway objections.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) CIL liable.

5 DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 5.1 The site is located on the corner of Main and Duck Street within the village of Bothenhampton, which is on the edge of Bridport. It sits within the designated Conservation Area (CA) and the previous farmhouse that stood on this site was a building of special interest as set in the CA, but was not listed. The site is also within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Dorset AONB).

5.2 Planning permission has previously been granted to replace the former farmhouse buildings on this site. The southern half of the site was previously in agricultural use and the site slopes gently from the northern frontage on Main Street down to the southern boundary with an approximate drop of 12m across the 100m length of the site. The site had prior to its redevelopment been left unattended for some years, and was previously in a poor condition and overgrown state with the former buildings in a dilapidated state with warning/health and safety notices placed on the Main Street frontage.

5.3 There is established housing opposite the site to the north in Main Street and to the west in Duck Street. To the east is the village hall. The southern boundary is bounded by a commercial greenhouse and agricultural storage with some residential properties. No other properties directly overlook the site but there is a 1970s housing estate ¼ mile away to the South which would have distant views.

6 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: 6.1 This is a Section 73A application that essentially seeks to vary the plans list condition associated with originally approved planning permission for this site (WD/D/17/002888/FUL - Demolition of original farmhouse in Conservation Area - Erection of 1.no. new 4 bed low carbon house. Approved April 2018 refers). Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 permits retrospective planning applications to be made for developments which have been carried out without permission, or which have been carried out without complying with some of the planning conditions imposed on a planning permission. The changes between this application and that previously approved are detailed below

6.2 Planning Background - As the Planning History below sets out, planning permission was granted for a development described as “new 4 bed low carbon house” in April 2018. This was followed by applications for ‘compliance with condition’ requests under ref numbers WD/D/18/001167/CWC and WD/D/18/002892/CWC that sought to deal with

 access onto Duck Street construction details;

Page 100  details of the days and hours that operations should take place on site during the demolition and construction phases of the development and details of site operative parking arrangements;  samples of all facing and roofing materials including details of the proposed glass (to be of a non-reflective type) to be installed in the rear lower extensions;  details of the proposed heritage greenhouse; compost bins; wooden shed; mobile chicken caravan; outdoor shelter; and tool shed; and  proposed drainage works (foul and surface water).

6.3 The above were all approved in December 2018.

6.4 In January 2019 after construction works had commenced complaints were received alleging that the proposal was not being built in accordance with the approved plans but no further action was taken after it was considered that there was (at that time) no breach of planning control.

6.5 The Council then received a Non Material Amendment (NMA) application (WD/D/19/000355/NMA) for some changes to external materials and the omission of rooflights, photovoltaic panels and an external staircase. When planning permission is granted, development must take place in accordance with the permission and conditions attached to it, and with any associated legal agreements. However new issues may arise after planning permission has been granted, which require modification of the approved proposals. Where these modifications are fundamental or substantial, a new planning application under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will need to be submitted. But where less substantial changes are proposed, then a NMA application can be made. There is no statutory definition of ‘non-material’. This is because it will be dependent on the context of the overall scheme – an amendment that is non-material in one context may be material in another. The local planning authority must be satisfied that the amendment sought is non-material in order to grant an application under the NMA method.

6.6 The NMA changes under application WD/D/19/000355 were to comprise:

 Change approved Purbeck rubble stone finish to lower ground floor eastern and southern elevations to approved lime render above DPC with approved Purbeck rubble stone below DPC.  Change approved Purbeck rubble stone finish to southern ground floor elevation of Bedroom Cottage to approved timber cladding.  Change approved Purbeck rubble stone finish to part of ground floor eastern elevations of Dairy Barn to approved timber cladding.  Omit one rooflight & PV panels to southern roof of Bedroom Cottage.  Change sedum roof of Entrance link to lead effect metal roof with same pitch.  Omit rooflights to WC & Bin Store to entrance link roof.  Change lead and glass roof of glazed link roof to lead effect metal roof. NOTE- large full length window of glazed link retained to maintain transparency.  Omit external metal staircase to eastern end of ground floor balcony.

Page 101 6.7 These amendments were approved in March 2019 despite some local opposition to those changes on the basis that they were not considered to be changes that would have significantly altered the whole appearance of what was approved nor were they considered to impact adversely on the amenity of any neighbouring occupier or the character of what was originally approved, nor have any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering those proposed changes as a whole given the approved scheme and the development as a whole they would affect only minor aspects of the approved development.

6.8 The Council then received a further NMA application (ref WD/D/19/000624/NMA) for “Changes to dormer windows on west and east elevation”. These changes were approved in March 2019 and comprised of:

 the southern most dormer on the west elevation which has had to be marginally increased in size in order to accommodate an internal lift as part of the approved scheme. That results in it being wider (2.06 compared to the approved 1.596m) and taller than approved (2.577 compared to 2.134) but it would still be set in from the eaves and set just below the ridge of the main roof.  the northernmost dormer on the west elevation would be altered in width to 1.596 (from 1.501 as approved) and height to 2.134 from an approved 2.152.  the dormer on the east elevation would be 2.192 compared to 2.355 highest and 2.058 width compared to 2.686.  Some minor changes to rooflights on two of the elevations.

6.9 Those changes as outlined above came about partly as a result of an internal lift being provided as part of the approved scheme which led to a change largely related to the southernmost dormer on the west elevation. That however along with the other changes proposed were not considered to be changes that would have significantly altered the whole appearance of what was approved nor were they considered to adversely impact on the amenity of any neighbouring occupier or the character of what was originally approved; nor have any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering those proposed changes as a whole given the approved scheme and the development as a whole they would affect only minor aspects of the approved development.

6.10 The Council then approved in May 2019 under an application for ‘compliance with condition’ request ref number WD/D/19/000782/CWC, a request for an alternative tile sample namely; the Phalempin Single Camber Clay Plain Roof Tile - Val De Siene (which was considered acceptable) and then a further ‘compliance with condition’ request ref number WD/D/19/001329/CWC. This was for confirmation of compliance with condition 3 of the original approval (Proposed materials have been agreed previously except for the non-reflective glass to be installed in the rear lower extensions), and the use of the Guardian clear float glass with a Guardian Clarity low reflectance coating was considered acceptable and was Approved in Oct 2019.

6.11 Application number WD/D/19/002277/NMA then sought further amendments to the original approval (planning permission WD/D/17/002888) for alterations to the height and

Page 102 width of the dwelling (as a result of further complaints received alleging that the proposal was not being built in accordance with the approved plans). The amendments proposed alterations to:

 the height, width and length of the elements of the building as approved,  together with the previous changes made under previous NMA applications to the dormer windows on west and east elevations, external materials, the omission of roof-lights, photovoltaic panels and an external staircase.

6.12 As a whole these changes were considered to be material changes and therefore not acceptable as a Non Material Amendment – However this was not a refusal of planning permission – it was solely a refusal to accept the changes as being non material when viewed as a whole and hence why this current application that seeks to formally alter the plans list condition as material amendments is now the subject of this Section 73A application.

6.13 Finally the Council then approved under another ‘compliance with condition’ request ref number WD/D/19/002463/CWC details of the render mix for the rendered parts of the development to be a traditional lime render as being acceptable on 30th October 2019.

6.14 The amendments to the development as now submitted - The main changes and reasons for the development are as set out in the applicants Design and Access Statement which are as follows:-

• Alterations to the height of the roofs of the dwelling; • Revisions to its length and width; • Change to the angle of its southwest wing • Re-siting of Duck Street entrance • Alterations to the landscape proposals to include a pond

6.15 In addition, the proposal also includes details of a chicken coop for approval. The chicken coop was shown on the approved landscaping plan and is therefore agreed in principle. But details of the coop, which were reserved by condition, had not been submitted for approval, unlike the other outbuildings where their details have been approved.

6.16 Reasons put forward by the applicant for the Changes. The change to the heights of the southeast and southwest wings were made to enable the insertion of sufficient insulation in the roof space above the steels to avoid thermal bridging and thus maximise sustainability.

The building’s dimensions were reduced in order to save costs.

The change to the angle of the southwest wing to make it perpendicular (90 degrees) to its opposing wing was undertaken to improve the floor layout.

Page 103 The Duck Street entrance was adjusted to avoid having to re-locate the telegraph pole and disrupt the existing utilities.

6.17 Looking at the changes in more detail beginning with the height of the development, the changes are listed in the table below:

Building Height Height as built Height as approved Difference The Old Barn 32.070 32.074 0.004+ The Farmhouse – 32.470 32.472 0.002+ Clay Roof The Farmhouse – 32.100 32.081 0.019+ Slate roof Winter Garden 31.950 31.895 0.055+ Dairy Barn 30.530 30.482 0.048+ Bedroom Cottage 30.530 30.462 0.068+

6.18 The height of the development has been surveyed by the applicant and cross referenced against the approved slab level (23.45 above sea level) issued on the approved drainage drawing to give a true height of the development as built and to provide as accurate a height as possible of the approved development, bearing in mind that:-

• The plans were hand drawn which inevitably produce inaccuracies and variations in the heights of the elevations. • There were no datum heights given on the approved drawing, nor were these required by condition. The approved height was therefore relative, (the difference between the ground level and ridge height) rather than being absolute.

6.19 That said the degree of accuracy in height between the approved development and as built development is not critical because it is the development as built which is being considered, in the general context of its setting and the approved development.

6.20 The changes to the length and width of the building are as follows: -

Building Width Length Width The Old Barn -83cm 0cm The Farmhouse – Clay Roof -170cm 0cm The Farmhouse – Slate -220cm 0cm Roof Winter Garden -216cm 0cm Dairy Barn -148cm -66cm Bedroom Cottage -58cm 0cm

6.21 The southwest wing has been cranked by 2 degrees towards the Road; and the access has been relocated 1.75m southwards.

6.22 The landscaping proposals now include a pond with adjacent bog area in the southeast corner of the lower reaches of the garden. This will be fed by rainwater and if it

Page 104 exceeds capacity it is designed so that the water will run-off into the adjacent bog area. The pond endorses the design philosophy to increase the biodiversity of the site. The ecological measures, aside from the bat boxes which are awaiting delivery, have been fully implemented and signed off in accordance with the required Biodiversity Mitigation Plan.

6.23 The chicken coop is a mobile structure. It measures 2m wide x 2.5m long by 1.85m high and would be built in timber.

6.24 Finally in terms of external materials these are as flows - all as previously agreed under the compliance with condition applications set out above:

 Natural Finish Larch Cladding T&G  Purbeck Stone  Re-Used Dry Stone Wall  Lime Render 1:3 NHL mix with washed sand  Slate Tile - Del Carmen Ultra Spanish slates 500x250mm by SSL  Standing Seam Zinc - ZM Silesia (Pre-Aged Grey)  Clay Tile - Phalempin Single Camber Clay Plain Roof Tile  Sinusoidal Corten Steel Roof  Sedum Roof - Bauder Sedum on Green Felt  Doors and Windows - Painted timber (RAL 7016)  Lead  Black Metal Gutters and RWPs

Glass:  Low reflectance glass to southern elevations  Balcony glass - Guardian Glass with 1 coat of Clarity Low reflectance coating to the outside. Light reflectance of 4%-approved by LPA  Glass to windows and doors SSG Climate Plus 6. Light Reflectance 12% - approved by LPA

7 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: see above in paras 6.2-6.13

8. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: 8.1 National Planning Policy Framework As far as this application is concerned the following section(s) of the NPPF are considered to be relevant;

Section 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 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Page 105 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.

8.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) As far as this application is concerned the following section(s) of the NPPF are considered to be relevant;

INT1. Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development ENV2. Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest ENV2. Wildlife and Habitats ENV4. Heritage Assets ENV0. The Landscape and Townscape Setting ENV11. The Pattern of Streets and Spaces ENV12. The Design and Positioning Of Buildings ENV13. Achieving High Levels of Environmental Performance ENV15. Efficient and Appropriate Use of Land ENV16. Amenity SUS1. The Level of Economic and Housing Growth SUS2. Distribution of Development HOUS1. Affordable Housing COM1. Making Sure New Development Makes Suitable Provision for Community Infrastructure COM7. Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network COM9. Parking Standards in New Development COM10. The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure CPM11. Renewable Energy Development

8.3 Bridport Neighbourhood Plan As far as this application is concerned the following policies of the Neighbourhood Plan are considered to be relevant:

Climate Change POLICY CC1 - Publicising Carbon Footprint POLICY CC2 - Energy and Carbon Emissions POLICY CC3 - Energy Generation to Offset Predicted Carbon Emissions

Access & Movement POLICY AM1 - Promotion of Active Travel Modes POLICY AM2 - Managing Vehicular Traffic

Housing POLICY H7 - Custom-Build and Self-Build Homes

Heritage

Page 106 POLICY HT1 - Non Designated Heritage Assets POLICY HT2 - Public Realm

Landscape POLICY L2 - Biodiversity POLICY L5 - Enhancement of the Environment

9 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 9.1 Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009)

Village Design Statements (VDSs) previously adopted as SPG in West Dorset, which remain relevant and may be material considerations in planning decisions include:

• Bothenhampton: includes parish plan (2003)

WDDC Landscape Character Assessment February 2009 – Urban Area

Bothenhampton Conservation Area Appraisal Following public consultation, the district council adopted the appraisal in December 2007 as a document that supports conservation area policies in the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (adopted 22 October 2015). The district council then approved an extension to the Bothenhampton conservation area in November 2008, details of which are included in the appraisal – in that Appraisal it states:

“Homestead Farmhouse (important local building) seems to be in a poor state of repair and its surrounds are untidy’” “The green spaces ...particularly below Homestead Farmhouse.... of great importance to the setting of the village” “The villages are characterised by a general good condition of the building stock, boundaries and the public realm. The exceptions are the Manor Farm barns group and The Buildings in Symondsbury and Homestead Farm in Bothenhampton” “Important Local Buildings: The contribution made by important local buildings is important and there are a number of individually attractive and interesting unlisted buildings, most of which contribute to the value of larger groups: ...... Homestead Farm, C19 roadside barn and house at right angles, stepping downhill in two blocks with lean-to, render over rubble, slate and pantile, casements; an interesting group in its own right and of wider group value”

Page 107 Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: A Framework for the Future AONB Management Plan 2019 - 2024

10 HUMAN RIGHTS: 10.1 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.

11 PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY: 11.1 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.

12.0 Financial benefits

Material benefits of the proposed development Affordable Housing N/A CIL Contributions The development is CIL Liable

Non-material benefits of the proposed development Council Tax Not known New Homes Bonus Not known

13.0 Climate Implications

13.1 The development is considered to be in a sustainable location, within the defined development boundary for Bothenhampton with the services and facilities of Bridport town within walking distance.

13.2 Energy has been used as a result of the production of the building materials and during the construction process. However that is inevitable when building houses and a balance has to be struck between providing housing to meet needs versus conserving natural resources and minimising energy use.

Page 108 13.3 The development is being built to current building regulation standards at the time of construction. The applicant has also submitted a document that explains that the building despite being extremely complex uses simple principles to ensure that it meets and exceeds its Climate Change requirements.

• It uses renewable systems to lower the energy usage from the grid. • The insulation values are higher than legally required to lower the energy usage. • The building has a high air tightness level to lower the energy usage. • It has been designed to minimise penetrations through the external envelope to ensure the integrity of the airtightness. • The floors have high thermal mass to retain heat. • The basic design uses established low carbon design principles to mitigate against heat loss from glazing. • The basic design uses established low carbon design principles to mitigate against heat loss gain from glazing. • The building has been technically assessed by a third party to ensure that it meets the requirements and has been assessed as passing . • The specification for the building has been upgraded to ensure that it exceeds the pass when the as built analysis is submitted. • Reused and recycled materials were used throughout. • A carefully designed landscape to enhance the ecology of the site.

14 CONSULTATIONS: 14.1 Highways - NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition(s):

Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 1702 L 001 Rev B must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon

14.2 Technical Services - no objection or further comment to make.

14.3 Bothenhampton Parish Council - The corporate view of the parish council is that the additional height of the Homestead Farm complex has had a big impact on the conservation area within Bothenhampton. This building now dominates the centre of the village and is over-bearing and out of keeping with its surroundings. Given the variety of materials used in the construction of the various roofs, the additional height has resulted in the most prominent building in the village being out of sympathy with the adjacent cottages and houses, many of which are listed.

14.4 Conservation Officer - These are minor alterations to an approved scheme.

14.5 Historic England - does not wish to offer any comments.

14.5 Natural England - no comment.

Page 109

14.6 Environment Health – Refer to their comments on the original application re Hours of operation are to be limited to:

Monday – Friday 0800 – 1800 Saturday 0900 – 1300 No activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays

15 REPRESENTATIONS: 15.1 42 representations have been received with the vast majority objecting to the application. Those objecting raise the following issues

 Highways Dept. had no objection providing the turning area and parking area had been constructed. The access to and exit from the property onto Main Street entails a very steep slope down to the garage immediately inside the boundary. It is not possible for delivery vehicles to enter from the street and park in the manner shown without being on this steep gradient. Exiting the property will require a difficult hill start onto a crowded, narrow road which is in effect single lane.

 Access onto Duck St for service vehicles is now much larger than the 5m originally stated and hedges have been removed over an area of 11m.

 The site can easily be seen from the public road

 The roof heights are now significantly higher than the original plan and the whole building is closer to the road than that plan. It is not acceptable at this late stage for the architects to excuse the increase in height by stating that this is to accommodate service piping.

 The Barn which was to have been faced with reused Forest Marble has been faced with incongruous Purbeck Stone. This has completely destroyed the pleasing look of Main Street in this conservation area. It is an eyesore visible from a wide area.

 The Forest Marble boundary wall is now being rebuilt with breezeblocks. There is not enough original FM stone to face this with.

 Views from the High Pavement have been dramatically reduced due to the increased height of the building. The original proposal was that views would be maintained as per Conservation Area Designation.

 This build varies greatly from the original plan. The NMA application to regularise a number of significant issues was rejected by yourselves but the applicant has shown no regard for this ruling and has continued to build apace.

 It would be a dangerous and illegal precedent if this build were accepted within a Conservation Area.

Page 110  This application is, in effect, an attempt to reverse a decision already taken by Dorset Council. That decision, taken following an application for the acceptance of a Non Material Amendment (NMA) to an original application WD/D/19/002888, was for REFUSAL. The decision is dated 14th October 2019. The NMA was for alterations to height and width of (the) dwelling. In addition previously granted NMAs were REFUSED being found “material and therefore not acceptable under section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as Amended)”.

 This current application is, basically, under the same headings. The submitted drawings, as far as it is possible to ascertain, are related to heights and widths of the dwelling. At an early period of construction it was apparent that the original planning permission was being flouted, principally as the structure was being built too high.

 Dorset Council Highways has raised NO OBJECTION to the driveway to the development on the basis of a single drawing 1702 L 001 Rev B which shows the arrangement in plan. This drawing has no levels on it, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that the driveway would be at existing levels. However what Dorset Council Highways has not seen, or upon which no comment is made, is a second drawing, 1702 L 605, submitted as part of this application, showing the driveway leaving Main Street at what appears to be an unacceptably steep slope. Independent advice has been sought from a Highways Engineer to establish whether, in highway terms, the driveway as shown on the Project Architect’s drawings is safe. The report is prepared as an advisory to Dorset Council Highways. It will be seen that the driveway design is “outside the recommended standards…..and should therefore not be constructed”. This is a matter of public safety.

 Within the context of this application there are Objections to the driveway as shown on the submitted drawing 1702 L 605. Furthermore, if these comments are accepted by Dorset Council, please be on notice that the design drawn up by the Project Architect is potentially unsafe, and that Dorset Council Highways (our custodians when it comes to highway safety) have also not approved drawing 1702 L 605. However the driveway appears to have been constructed to the submitted drawings. This being the case it is essential that the recommendation by Dorset Council Highways that “Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 1702 L 001 Rev B must have been constructed.” should be rigorously enforced. This will mean abandoning the garage and infilling the excavated driveway back to the original ground profiles – as assumed by Dorset Council Highways, before the development is occupied or utilised.

 Conservation input appears sadly lacking. This site has an area of 5,000 square metres. Under legislation any site over 1,000 square metres in a Conservation Area has to be referred to Historic England. There is no published comment from Historic England. Objections to the fact that either Historic England has not been consulted, or, in the alternative, they have been consulted and their report has not been made available.

Page 111  Technical Services have commented on the current application. Their response is “With regards to the above application, I have no objection or further comment to make” The current application is for a higher building than previously approved. As the Wanderwell Valley is a known zone of excessive wind load (an adjacent property lost ridge tiles in a recent moderate gale) the structural design of the development should be reviewed as it is now declared to be significantly higher. Objections are raised to Technical Services’ comment, until such time as confirmation is publicly given that the as submitted design is approved. The relevant legislation is contained within the Building Regulations.

 Not in line with approval given by Dorset Council.

 From the east facing kitchen window of a Duck Street resident, hedging along the previous field, was low enough to see sheep peering over and to throw them occasional apples. The view from the east facing bathroom window was outstanding with nothing overlooking and therefore no need for glazed windows or indeed curtains. The former have been lost completely and the latter dramatically reduced in the kitchen/dining room.

 The development has had a negative impact on not only Duck Street but from many surrounding aspects, included the Bothenhampton nature reserve in particular the issue of field height and the more than double size opening into Duck Street.

 The increased size of opening into Duck Street and what appears to be totally inadequate drainage, led to flooding serious enough to require the intervention of Wessex Water and the Environment Agency. This flooding is causing deterioration to the left (field) side of the surface of the lane and if this continues, it will reach a point where normal vehicles will have difficulty in accessing the properties. This ancient lane of historical interest should not be allowed to be misused and abused.

 In terms of the drainage allegedly installed on the Homestead Farm property, this appears to be woefully inadequate.

 Bothenhampton is a unique place, in a conservation area and an AONB. It deserves to be treated with respect and both its inhabitants and Dorset Council had the right to expect that Homestead Farm would be built according to the permission granted in April 2018.

 The barn adjacent to the road is an eyesore. The Conservation Officer's remarks in the original application stated that rebuilding the barn using reclaimed stone would mean that the street frontage would remain the same; and that any wall frontage along Main Street which was removed during the building process must be re-built using reclaimed stone.

 The decrease in length of the main structure means that the wings are closer to the road than they should be and this has a significantly detrimental effect on both the residents and the village.

Page 112

 As regards the glazed atrium of the 'winter garden' of the new house this feature as originally shown on the plan would have been barely visible from Main Street Bothenhampton, well down the hill and obscured by the wings of the building. The combined effect of the increased height of each of the main run of buildings and the change in length means that the glazed section is now glaringly prominent from any part of high pavement, and totally out of keeping with the protected village conservation scene.

 When the building is occupied and lit it will be as if Bothenhampton has its own lighthouse.

 The land has been significantly raised across the site. The site now sits well above the hedge line. This not only impacts upon the appearance of the conservation area but has already caused severe drainage problems and flooding to the surrounding area.

 The building itself does not conform to the original plans in terms of height. The planning department need to consider the impact for local residents and the conservation area. The result has been negative to the local area and more imposing for residents.

 Contrary to Conservation Area and Design policies of the Local Plan.

 A driveway has now been made onto Duck Street destroying the hedge separating the site from Duck Street. The original hedge has been thinned beyond recognition and the level of the site towers high above the street the other side. The changes have drastically affected the character of this historical street and the privacy for its residents.

 This building’s size (footprint) is way over what would be deemed compatible for this conservation area.

 The building is also higher than envisaged in many places, does not follow the contours of the falling site.

 As originally planned, the owners made great play of this being an eco building. The amount of energy-using concrete used for the massive foundations alone plus the general spoiling of the landscape into a mud-heap plus the desecration of trees and a hedge for a huge side entrance plus the lack of even any solar panels which were originally designated makes the use of the word “eco” ridiculous.

 The failure to use local stone in an area of conservation is another reason for refusing permission.

 Shocked and astounded by the difference between what was originally proposed.

Page 113  There have been some independent surveys taken place that have shown the building to be over a metre higher than was proposed and that it is situated much closer to the road than was suggested on the plans

 It was proposed that this building would not be any more visible than the original barn and that it would "cascade down the hillside". There is no way of looking at the current build that could support this as anything other than fiction.

 Bothenhampton Village is a conservation area and in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and this enormous house has a hugely negative effect on the surroundings, the views and character of the village

 The development has not proceeded in line with the approved plans and therefore does not benefit from the permission therein. The fact is that the developer decided to execute a scheme that is significantly different from that approved. Their ability to lawfully execute the fall-back scheme appears questionable and therefore the weight attributed to the fall back should be reflective of this.

 Whilst the applicant claims that some of the changes are minor in nature the NPPF emphasises the need for early engagement with local communities on design and these evolve to a high standard delivered on the ground rather than a diluted and different scheme leaving local communities frustrated and disappointed with the outcome. The changes, involving re-positioning of buildings and significant increases in heights of buildings, taken together, fail to effectively integrate with their surroundings and that of the conservation area and heritage assets.

 Weight should also be attributed to the fact that the development constitutes intentional unauthorised development.

 The planning committee are respectfully requested to refuse this variation and furthermore respectfully urged to direct officers to proceed with formal enforcement action.

15.2 Support – Those in support include:

A 12 signatory petition in support of the proposal has been received saying that there are no objections to the increase in roof height.

In addition separate representations have replied stating:

 As residents of Bothenhampton who regularly drive and walk past Homestead Farm we have no concerns about this development as it now stands in any respect. Lowering the roof height would seem to us to make no appreciable difference from street level.  I live on the high pavement opposite Homestead Farm. Fail to see what all the fuss is about. When the building and gardens are completed it will no doubt look fine.

Page 114 16 PLANNING ISSUES:

16.1 There are 2 main planning issues arising for this application which are:

 Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of any Listed Buildings/Impact on AONB  Impact on amenity of neighbours

17 PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

17.1 An application can be made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary or remove conditions associated with a planning permission. One of the uses of a section 73 application is to seek a minor material amendment, where there is a relevant condition that can be varied. In this case as the proposal has already commenced the provisions are made under Section 73A.

17.2 Under Section 73A, and prior to any formal enforcement action, a local planning authority (LPA) can invite a retrospective application where the LPA consider that an application is the appropriate way forward to seek to regularise the situation. It is important to note however that:

“although a local planning authority may invite an application, it cannot be assumed that permission will be granted, and the local planning authority should take care not to fetter its discretion prior to the determination of any application for planning permission – such an application must be considered in the normal way”;

17.3 Section 36(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 1990, and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local planning authorities should, in making their decisions, focus their attention on national and development plan policies, and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission. The approved development is therefore an important material consideration which carries significant weight essentially as a fall-back position.

17.4 The effect of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is to leave intact the original planning permission. It therefore represents the baseline to assess the proposal by, as it is the changes from this baseline on which the current application should be considered.

17.5 The approval of the dwelling under WD/D/17/002888 and the subsequent approval of non-material changes to its design, as outlined in the Planning History section above, confirms that the scheme, as was then amended, was acceptable within its planning context. It therefore sets the baseline by which to assess the new changes to the scheme. In other words, the elements of the development common to both the approved development and the scheme as built are not in dispute. It is the changes between the approved scheme and as built scheme which are to be considered.

Page 115

17.6 The Development Plan – Since the original permission was granted there is now a Neighbourhood Plan (NP) in force in this area that covers Bothenhampton, and this essentially is the most recent Development Plan document on which to assess the merits of the proposals along with those of the adopted Local Plan (2015). The NP has a number of Policies that are applicable to this determination as are set out below:

17.7 Climate Change POLICY CC1 - Publicising Carbon Footprint - Applicants should seek to minimise the carbon footprint of development proposals and are encouraged to submit a statement setting out the anticipated carbon emissions of the proposed development.

Policy CC2 - Energy and Carbon emissions - New development should aim to meet a high level of energy efficiency where achievable, by: a) Exceeding the target emission rate of Building Regulations Part L 2013 for dwellings.

Policy CC3 - Energy generation to Offset Predicted Carbon emissions - New development, both commercial and residential is encouraged, where possible, to secure at least 10% of its total unregulated energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources.

17.8 Officer comment - In answer to the above the applicant has submitted a document that explains the building despite being extremely complex uses simple principles to ensure that it meets and exceeds its Climate Change requirements.

• It uses renewable systems to lower the energy usage from the grid. • The insulation values are higher than legally required to lower the energy usage. • The building has a high air tightness level to lower the energy usage. • It has been designed to minimise penetrations through the external envelope to ensure the integrity of the airtightness. • The floors have high thermal mass to retain heat. • The basic design uses established low carbon design principles to mitigate against heat loss from glazing. • The basic design uses established low carbon design principles to mitigate against heat loss gain from glazing. • The building has been technically assessed by a third party to ensure that it meets the requirements and has been assessed as passing. • The specification for the building has been upgraded to ensure that it exceeds the pass when the as built analysis is submitted. • Reused and recycled materials were used throughout. • A carefully designed landscape to enhance the ecology of the site.

It is considered that the proposal meets these NP Climate Change policies.

17.9 Access & Movement POLICY AM1 - Promotion of Active Travel Modes - Proposals for new development which are likely to generate increased pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic movement should: a) Provide for pedestrian movement as a priority.

Page 116 b) Make appropriate connections to existing footpaths, cycle paths, rights of way and bridleways to improve connectivity in and between settlements. c) Enable safe and convenient access to be provided for all people including the disabled. d) Make possible, or not hinder, the provision of improvements to public transport and of facilities for car sharing and electric vehicles.

POLICY AM2 - Managing Vehicular Traffic - Proposals for new development which are likely to generate increased vehicular movement should: a) Provide convenient and safe access onto the adjacent roads and this should not adversely affect existing pedestrian movement. b) Make the best use of existing transport infrastructure through improvement and reshaping of roads and junctions where required to improve pedestrian access and connectivity to surrounding areas. c) Ensure residential and environmental amenity is not adversely affected by traffic.

Development proposals that cannot meet the above requirements will not be supported.

17.10 Officer comment - In light of the above NP Policies coupled with the response from highways who raise no objection, subject to conditions, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to the Access & Movement Policies of the NP.

17.11 Housing POLICY H7 - Custom-Build and Self-Build Homes - The provision of Custom Build and Self Build Homes is supported. For major applications the inclusion of 4% of serviced plots is encouraged.

17.12 Officer comment – Clearly this proposal meets this Policy as the proposal is a new self-build custom build on this site.

17.13 Heritage POLICY HT1 - Non Designated Heritage Assets The Joint Councils Committee has prepared (and will maintain) a list of buildings, features and structures in the neighbourhood plan area which are considered to be ‘non-designated heritage assets’ and should be treated as such for the purpose of applying national and Local Plan policies including Policy ENV4 of the Adopted Local Plan (2015).

POLICY HT2 - Public Realm Proposals that have a negative impact or “harm” the qualities of the public realm as identified in the Neighbourhood Characteristics of this plan will not be supported.

17.14 Officer comment – see comments on Impact on Listed Buildings and Conservation Area/AONB below at para 17.24 onwards.

17.15 Landscape POLICY L2 – Biodiversity 1. Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate how they will provide a net gain in biodiversity and, where feasible, habitats and species, on the site, over and above the existing biodiversity situation.

Page 117 2. If significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (For example through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission will not be supported. 3. Wildlife corridors and important habitats have been identified on Maps 7, 8 and 9 and proposals that would result in their loss or harm to their character, setting, accessibility, appearance, quality, or amenity value should be avoided.

POLICY L5 - Enhancement of the Environment - Appropriate to the scale of development, proposals for new housing development should:

1. Include good quality outdoor space, both private and community gardens, and contribute to providing tree cover and improving biodiversity and 2. Make provision for green infrastructure.

17.16 Officer comment – This proposal is considered to meet Policies L1 and L5 as the originally approved proposal required under condition 8 that the development be carried out in accordance with the submitted biodiversity mitigation report of William Davis, Lindsay Carrington Ecological Consultancy Ltd dated 3rd January 2018 in the interests of nature conservation. The current landscaping proposals include a pond with adjacent bog area in the southeast corner of the lower reaches of the garden which will be fed by rainwater and if it exceeds capacity it is designed so that the water will run-off into the adjacent bog area. The pond endorses the design philosophy to increase the biodiversity of the site. The ecological measures, aside from the bat boxes which at the time of writing this report are waiting delivery, have been fully implemented and signed off in accordance with the required Biodiversity Mitigation Plan.

17.17 In addition the proposals would clearly meet Policy L5 which requires new housing development to include good quality outdoor space, both private and community gardens, and contribute to providing tree cover and improving biodiversity. This is a private dwelling site where good quality private space would be provided.

17.18 Design for Living POLICY D1 - Harmonising with the Site 1. A housing development will be required to respect and work in harmony with: a. the local landform and microclimate b. the existing pedestrian, cyclists and motorised network c. existing features that are locally significant or important for local character, historical, ecological or geological reasons d. neighbouring land uses.

2. Opportunities to incorporate features that would enhance local character, or the historical, ecological or geological interest of a site, should be taken if practical and appropriate.

POLICY D2 - Programme of Consultation - Applicants are encouraged to enter into a meaningful programme of community consultation appropriate to the scale of development.

Page 118

POLICY D5 - Efficient Use of Land Development should make efficient use of land, and layouts that create wasted or leftover land will not be supported. a) The design and management of outdoor spaces within and adjoining settlements should fully utilise the opportunities for:

• Recreation and social interaction. • Dealing with surface water drainage and alleviating flooding. • Providing new or enhancing existing wildlife habitats. • Incorporating landscape solutions to soften the urbanising impact of new development. b) Development of brownfield sites for housing will be supported provided the land is not of high environmental value. c) Application for residential development above commercial ground floors will be supported.

POLICY D6 - Definition of Streets and Spaces Proposals for new residential development in the Plan area should create a sense of place through: a) A strong sense of enclosure, considering building lines and appropriate building height to street width ratio. b) The use of street trees or appropriate boundary features (walls or hedges) in areas where a sense of enclosure is needed but cannot be achieved through strong building lines. c) The provision of parking to the required standard so that it does not dominate the street scene.

POLICY D7 - Creation of Secure Areas 1. New developments should: a) Have the main access to a building at the front, facing the street or communal entrance courtyard. b) Make sure doors and windows face onto the street and other places where surveillance is needed. c) Avoid that blank walls enclose public areas. d) Provide a basic level of privacy at the rear of homes either through sufficient rear garden depth or orientation and screening to prevent direct overlooking. Private areas should be clearly defined through appropriate boundary treatment, and care taken to limit opportunities for intruders to gain easy access to the rear of buildings and other private spaces. 2. Exceptions to a) and b) may be permitted where the development is a gated community or there are other compensatory measures taken in the design to increase security.

POLICY D8 - Contributing to the Local Character Proposals for new development (residential and commercial) in the Plan area should demonstrate high quality architecture and seek to maintain and enhance local character as follows:

Page 119 a) New development should reflect the local building forms and traditions, materials and architectural detailing that are significant in the local area, and maintain or, where appropriate, enhance local character. Exceptions may be the use of modern design and materials that contrast with yet complement local character. b) New developments should enhance the local character, although this does not imply simply duplicating existing developments which, in themselves, may not be of good quality. c) Where a development is proposed in or on the edge of an existing settlement, any new routes will respect their place in the hierarchy within the overall network, and the design of the development should be influenced by the need to define or soften the transition between areas of different character. d) Where new plots are being formed, these should reflect the existing grain and pattern of development where these form a significant characteristic in the street scene, unless this would conflict with other policies. e) New developments should not be disproportionate in scale to adjoining buildings in the locality, unless warranted by its proposed use and position on the street. f) Innovation in building design and materials in a way that supports local distinctiveness and the other objectives for good design and sustainable development will be supported. g) Buildings should normally be no more than two storeys in height, (with use of the roof space with dormer windows as a useable living space being accepted), unless heights of neighbouring buildings dictate the appropriate height for a new or extended building and the proposed design causes no impairment of light or visual impact.

POLICY D9 - Environmental Performance (see also Policies CC2, CC3) Applicants are encouraged to design buildings to last, employing modern innovative technologies and methods of construction to, for instance, reduce construction costs, speed up construction, and minimise energy consumption and carbon emissions during the building’s lifetime, such as: a) Adopting energy conservation in the construction phase of new buildings (including the use of local materials to avoid transport impacts). b) Avoid using those materials most harmful to the environment (those given a ‘D’ or ‘E’ rating in the Green Guide to Specification). c) Use southerly facing roof slopes for solar thermal and/or photovoltaic installations, where possible integrated into the roof design, subject to the appropriate level of heritage and conservation assessment. d) Maximise opportunities for natural lighting and ventilation to buildings. e) In areas with known flooding issues, or where extensive areas (greater than 5 square metres) of hard surfacing are required, using permeable materials. f) Including systems to collect rainwater for use, also the use of grey water. g) Designing homes to Lifetime Homes Standard.

POLICY D11 - Building for Life 1. Applicants for new housing developments are encouraged to assess their proposals against the 12 objectives in the guidance published in the latest edition of “Building for Life” published by the Design Council. 2. Proposals for large scale residential development should obtain the Building for Life quality mark and the achievement of nine “green” levels is encouraged.

Page 120

17.19 Officer comment - As the applicants submission explains the overall effects of the changes to the dwelling have to be viewed in the context of the ‘as approved’ substantial dwelling which is of complicated design set in a large plot. Consequently, the effect of the changes to the design are considered overall, and with the backdrop of the approved scheme, are considered to be minimal within the setting of the street scene and further afield.

17.20 The originally approved design created separate elements of the building stepping down the hillside to reflect the contours of the site, the history of development on the site and to articulate the dwelling to read as a series of buildings. The design facing the road frontage reflected the more traditional buildings on Main Street, while the rear had a more contemporary feel. This approach was previously accepted by the Council as Local Planning Authority as demonstrated by the previous approval. The changes to the design still adhere to this approach.

17.21 The change in ground levels of the site is reflected in the changes in the ridge heights so from the “Farmhouse” to the “Dairy Barn” and to “Bedroom Cottage” the ridges aim to cascade down the slope. The variations in ridge heights, the changes in appearance, the stepping in and angling of parts of the elevations, allows the design to be broken down into discreet modules which complement but are different to each other and therefore appear as a series of buildings. The effect of this is to create a dynamic design so it varies as one moves along Main Street in either direction. No two views are the same.

17.22 With the dwelling’s complicated design, as well as extending far back into the plot, with plenty of space either side of it, this allows the changes to be easily absorbed into the overall design without any ill effect.

17.23 Furthermore, the building recedes away from the viewer when seen from public viewpoints, primarily from the high pavement of the Main Street opposite the site. Indeed, the buildings that have the largest increase in ridge height are approximately 30m from the raised pavement. Overall, the change in height does not materially alter the composition of the design. The stepped ridge lines are still maintained, as are the series of buildings. The bulk and mass of the approved development and its articulation, which is a fundamental characteristic of the design, has also not been compromised. Space around the building is also unaffected. Visually the development as constructed and as proposed to be competed makes little difference to its overall composition when compared to the approved plans.

17.24 Detailed examination of the changes to the design – Impact on Listed Buildings and Conservation Area/AONB. The nearest Listed Buildings are opposite - 33 and Hopewell House Main Street, The George Inn Main Street and 3 & 4 Sunnyside – all are Grade II listed. Nos 2, 5 and 6 Sunnyside are notable Important Local Buildings as are 35 and 37 Main Street and of course the application site and its previous buildings were also identified as an Important Local Building. Clematis Cottage to the west on the corner of Duck Street is also an Important Local Buildings as is Ab Antiquo beyond the Village Hall building to the east. To the south is Spring Farm Cottage another Grade II Listed Building.

Page 121 17.25 There are statutory duties which apply to this proposal that special regard is given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting and to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. These are set out in Sections 66 and 72 respectively of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

17.26 Changes to Height - The Heritage Statement looks at the effect of the individual changes to the design on the Conservation Area.

17.27 It is considered that the increased height of the Winter Garden makes no discernible difference on views of the valley. The approved development would have obscured sky views.

17.28 Therefore, it is considered there is no greater impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

17.29 In terms of the effect of the increased height of Dairy Barn and Bedroom Cottage the impact depends very much on the viewing angle. The two angled ranges are not easily seen together from the lower view point of the road and from the higher viewpoint of the raised pavement even if they are seen together the change in height is considered to be a minor variation such that it would not have a material impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Originally, views across the valley were partly contained by the former development and vegetation. The approved scheme would also have contained views across the valley. The effect of raising the ridge slightly higher on Dairy Barn and Bedroom Cottage to contain the view between the approved ridgelines and the as built ridgelines do not materially alter the impact of the development on views across the valley.

17.30 In addition, the shortening of Dairy Barn and Bedroom Cottage compensates for the small loss of view above the approved ridge line.

17.31 When viewed from the far side of the valley the changes are imperceptible; the dwelling is seen against other buildings, on the hillside above and below the site.

17.32 Shortening and narrowing of dwelling In terms of the shortening of the farmhouse, the submitted Heritage Statement states that:

‘It has no material effect on the character of the building – it still reads as being domestic in its form and in, the context of the ‘barn’ to the north and the agricultural shed character of the ‘bedroom cottage’ and ‘dairy barn’, it still reads as the ‘farmhouse’

17.33 The statement goes on to say that: -

‘It is considered that the slight shortening of the length of the building has no material impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area over and above the approved scheme. The reduction has actually reduced the mass of this element of the house. It is considered that the change between approved and as built has not caused harm to the designated heritage asset.’

Page 122

17.34 As to the changes to the shortening of the other buildings and the width reduction of Dairy Barn these are not really apparent, unless viewed on plan. There is therefore no significant adverse harmful effect on the street scene, Conservation Area or AONB. The changes would therefore accord with policies ENV1, ENV4, ENV10 and ENV12 of the Local Plan and policies HT2, D1 and D8 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

17.35 Re-positioning of southwest wing The rotation of the south west wing by two degrees is imperceptible in relation to the impact on the street scene. It does allow for an improved internal layout to allow the building to function better. There would be no conflict with policies ENV1, ENV4, ENV10 and ENV12 of the Local Plan or policies D1 and D6 of the Neighbourhood Plan

17.36 The key tests are whether the setting of the Grade II Listed Buildings as set out above are harmed or the character and appearance of the Conservation Areas is preserved or enhanced or so compromised as a result of the development to warrant a refusal of planning permission. In this regard the setting of the listed buildings to the north is not considered to be unduly compromised as there would be little in the way of change arising from the changes to the development which fronting Main Street largely follow the same mass and bulk of the previously existing buildings that have been replaced and their increased height is not considered to be so adverse an impact to warrant a refusal of permission. As a result it is considered that there is no harm to these Heritage Assets.

17.37 Given the above comments it is considered that as a whole the proposals satisfy Section 66 (setting of Listed Buildings) and Section 72 (preserve/enhancement of Conservation Areas) as set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy ENV4 of the adopted Local Plan and HT2 of the NP. They would when complete bring about a development that would sit comfortably on the plot given the size of the application site and which pays regard to the sites history in terms of external materials as well as providing a more modern approach to the rearward proposals away from Main Street.

17.38 As a result these changes do not materially have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.. It could also be argued that the resulting building as per the previously approved building provides an interesting new building that enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and by extension the AONB. The proposal would therefore accord with policies ENV1, ENV4, ENV10 and ENV12 of the Local Plan and the Heritage and the thrust of the Design for Life Policies of the Neighbourhood Plan.

17.39 Amenity Impact on Neighbours As with the previously approved scheme it is considered that there would be no significant adverse impact on neighbouring occupiers. The scheme has been sensitively designed such that there would be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy from the built form of the development now proposed nor from the proposed windows particularly given that the proposed development takes a central position within the large plot and given the distances involved to the elevations of existing buildings that neighbour it.

Page 123

17.40 Previously there was an issue about the use of reflective glass material in the southern elevations of the wing buildings but these details have now been approved in compliance with a previously imposed condition. In addition the west side and rear (lower) half of the application site will eventually be laid out essentially as a large domestic allotment where the applicant intends to grow and cultivate crops. There is no indication that this would comprise a commercial use, which in any event would need a separate planning permission if a commercial venture were to be established.

17.41 To access the allotment land to the south of the site, an entrance has now been formed half way along Duck Street, a private unadopted street. Duck Street was for many years used as the commercial entrance to Springfield Plant Nursery. The new entrance when complete will be a domestic access only and an ecological mitigation plan has been put in place to compensate for any displaced habitat. The new access is proposed to be wide enough to only allow a single vehicle to access this lower allotment part of the site. The new access proposed has caused much concern to other residents who have access over Duck Street but this is a private unadopted lane. The use of Duck Street is a civil and private matter for the applicants to take up separately with those owners or those who have access rights over it. It is not considered that the Duck Street access is unacceptable in terms of it creating a new gap in the lane to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

17.42 The changes now proposed as a whole would not have a significantly adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in terms of light loss and overshadowing given the space between the development and the adjacent properties and given the overall small increase in height. There would therefore be no conflict with policy ENV16 of the adopted Local Plan.

17.43 The changes to the height of Dairy Barn and Bedroom Cottage has enabled the buildings to be insulated to a higher specification than the current building regulations to retain the low carbon credentials of the dwelling which is in line with the ambitions of the NPPF, policy ENV13 of the Local Plan and policies D9, CC1 and CC2 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

17.44 Other matters Hours of construction As regards construction activity the previously approved scheme conditioned details of parking for site operatives and hours of construction. The approved hours were:

 8am - 5pm Mon – Fri  8am - 1pm – Sat  No Sunday working

17.45 However the Council has now had a formal request as part of the current application from the applicants’ agent seeking to alter the approved hours of construction given current Government guidance as regards COVID19. That advice via this link explains what is involved: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-construction-update-qa

Page 124

17.46 The advice states:

On 13 May 2020, the government published a written ministerial statement on planning and construction working hours. This statement expects local planning authorities to approve requests to extend construction working hours temporarily to ensure safe working in line with social distancing guidelines until 9pm, Monday to Saturday, unless there are very compelling reasons against this.

Developers should expect their local planning authority to grant temporary changes to construction working hours until 9pm or later, 6 days a week, wherever possible and where construction working hours are controlled by planning condition. This flexibility is in relation to control imposed by the planning system only.

Where there are modest or short-term changes to construction working hours, this may be agreed informally with the local planning authority, and they should use their discretion to not enforce against a breach of working hours.

Where long or more significant changes to working hours are required, a formal application may be requested by the local planning authority. In doing so, it will be important for applicants to consider potential impacts and, where necessary, to put forward plans to manage concerns, drawing on existing good practice.

We expect local planning authorities to be supportive of reasonable requests. Local authorities should accept proposals for extended working hours unless there are very strong reasons against this. They should ensure that decisions are issued within 10 days where possible. We expect this to be a soft and user-friendly process and for guidance to be available on the local authority website.

In making their decision local planning authorities may consider where there are unreasonable impacts but they will be able to reject proposals only where there are very compelling reasons. These reasons could include the significant impact on neighbouring businesses or uses, such as care homes, which are particularly sensitive to noise, dust or vibration, which cannot be overcome through other mitigation, or where impacts on densely populated areas would be unreasonable.

The aim is to allow construction work until 9pm, Monday to Saturday. Longer hours may be justified, especially if there are no residential dwellings nearby. However, local planning authorities will maintain local discretion, and where there are unreasonable impacts, they will be able to reject proposals to extend construction hours into the late night or on a Sunday. In all cases, sympathetic site management should be demonstrated.

17.47 On the one hand extending construction hours until the requested 9pm - 6 days a week - may result in the development being built and completed quicker which would be advantageous to neighbouring occupiers as the resulting impact in terms of construction activity on their day to day amenity which would be less than would otherwise be the case.

Page 125 17.48 On the other hand the site is located in the heart of the village and surrounded on all sides mainly by residential buildings. In that regard it is considered that the already approved hours of construction should only be extended from 5pm to 6pm to allow additional construction work but that this be permitted for weekdays only with any Saturday working being maintained from 8am to 1pm. This is not a town or City centre site which could more readily absorb such extended hours of construction without detriment to neighbouring occupiers.

17.49 As regards these revised hours of construction this can be dealt with by a planning condition with site operatives parking to be provided as per the approved details on the previous application.

17.50 Re-positioning of Duck Street entrance The slight re-positioning of the Duck Street entrance means that the existing utilities do not have to be disrupted. The change does not materially affect the approved design. Therefore, it would not be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area and would still provide a safe access, in accordance with policies COM7 of the Local Plan and AM2 of the Neighbourhood Plan. There are no highway objections to the proposals, subject to a condition that prior to occupation the turning and parking be provided and retained as such thereafter.

17.51 Alterations to landscaping to include Pond The pond is designed to enhance the ecology of the site. It is fed by rainwater and on reaching capacity any excess water will drain into the adjacent bog area, which will drain away at greenfield rates. It therefore would not increase the risk of flooding. From this perspective it will be compliant with policy ENV5 of the Local Plan and D9 of the Neighbourhood Plan. The pond will contribute significantly to the biodiversity of the site by encouraging insects, reptiles and amphibians, birds and bats, as well as flora. Therefore, the scheme will also accord with policy ENV2 of the Local Plan and policies D1, L2 and L5 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

17.52 Impact of Chicken Coop The chicken coop will be an attractive traditional feature. It reflects the heritage of the site as a former farmstead. Its small scale means that it will not be noticeable other than from inside the garden. Overall it will have no impact on the Conservation Area

18 CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:

18.1 The changes to the dwelling are in keeping with the original design concept. They also allow the dwelling to maintain its low carbon credentials. The changes have no adverse impact on the street scene and have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, or the wider AONB given the fall-back position of the approved scheme.

18.2 The changes do not impact adversely on neighbours’ amenity. Alterations to the landscaping benefit biodiversity and provide a sustainable solution to run off. The alterations to the access do not interfere with highway safety or impact any more on the Conservation Area than the approved development. There is therefore no conflict with the

Page 126 adopted Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan and its policies sufficient to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

19 RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to the following conditions (those that were approved originally have been amended accordingly for this current proposal but as the development has already commenced a new commencement condition is not required):

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan - Drawing Number L301 received on 27/12/2019 (As built) Lower Ground Floor Plan & Ground Floor Plan - Drawing Number L401 received on 27/12/2019 (As built) First Floor Plan & Roof Plan - Drawing Number L402 received on 27/12/2019 (As built) Elevation 1 of 3 - Drawing Number L601 received on 27/12/2019 (As built) Elevation 2 of 3 - Drawing Number L602 received on 27/12/2019 (As built) Elevation 3 of 3 - Drawing Number L603 received on 27/12/2019 Barbeque Shelter Area - Drawing Number L501 received on 27/12/2019 Open Compost Bins & Wood Shed - Drawing Number L505 received on 27/12/2019 Chicken Coop - Drawing Number L507 received on 27/12/2019 Tool & Lawnmower Shed - Drawing Number L503 received on 27/12/2019 Open Wood Shed & Trailer Store - Drawing Number L504 received on 27/12/2019 Landscaping Plan - Drawing Number 801 LANDP001 REV 009 received on 27/12/2019 Landscaping Plan - Drawing Number L007 Rev B received on 13/07/2020

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development shall be carried out in accordance with details and samples of all facing and roofing materials including the glazing installed in the rear lower extensions hereby approved as per the details approved under compliance with condition applications WD/D/18/002892; WD/D/19/00782; WD/D/19/001329; WD/D/19/002463 which sets out the following:

Glass:

Page 127  Low reflectance glass to southern elevations  Balcony glass - Guardian Glass with 1 coat of Clarity Low reflectance coating to the outside. Light reflectance of 4%-approved by LPA  Glass to windows and doors SSG Climate Plus 6. Light Reflectance 12% - approved by LPA

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality and to prevent undue glare.

3 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details hereby approved of the heritage greenhouse; compost bins; trailer store; barbeque shelter area; wood store; chicken coop; outdoor field shelter; and tool/lawnmower shed all as shown on drawing number 801 LANDP001 Rev 009 received on 27/12/2019

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality.

4 Before the dwelling hereby approved is occupied the turning and parking shown on Drawing Number 1702 L 001 Rev B must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon

5 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the proposed drainage works (foul and surface water) submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority under ref WD/D/18/002892/CWC. That approved drainage scheme shall be completed before occupation of the development.

Reason: To avoid drainage problems as a result of the development with consequent pollution or flood risk.

6 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the landscaping details as shown on drawing number Landscape Plan - Drawing Number 1702 L007 Rev B. The scheme shall be carried out in the first available planting season or prior to the occupation of any part of the development. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree/plant, that tree/plant or any tree/plant planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective) another tree/plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be replanted in the first available planting season unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality

Page 128 7 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted biodiversity mitigation report of William Davis, Lindsay Carrington Ecological Consultancy Ltd dated 3rd January 2018 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation interests

8 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Duck Street access proposals (drawing number L 016 REV H) which shall be completed prior to occupation of the dwelling and retained as such

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality and to ensure satisfactory drainage is provided to prevent problems in Duck Street.

9. Hours of construction associated with the development herby permitted shall not take place outside the hours of 8am to 6pm on weekdays; 8am to 1pm on Saturdays; with no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Parking for site operatives shall be in accordance with the approved details as per application ref WD/D/18/001167/CWC.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and highway safety.

Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank Public Document Pack

DORSET COUNCIL - WESTERN AND SOUTHERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12 AUGUST 2020

Present: Cllrs Simon Christopher (Chairman), Kelvin Clayton, Susan Cocking, Jean Dunseith, Nick Ireland, David Shortell (Vice-Chairman), Sarah Williams and Kate Wheller

Apologies: Cllrs David Gray and Pete Barrow

Also present: Cllr David Walsh, Cllr Dave Bolwell and Cllr Rebecca Knox

Officers present (for all or part of the meeting): Penny Canning (Lead Project Officer), Ann Collins (Area Manager – Western and Southern Team), Philip Crowther (Legal Business Partner - Regulatory), Jo Riley (Senior Planning Officer), Darren Rogers (Enforcement Manager), Allison Sharpe (Business Support Officer), Guy Tetley (Engineer (Development Liaison)) and Denise Hunt (Democratic Services Officer)

139. Election of Vice-Chairman for the meeting

Proposed by Cllr Susan Cocking, seconded by Cllr Nick Ireland.

Decision: That Cllr David Shortell be elected as Vice-Chairman for the meetings on 12 and 13 August 2020.

140. Apologies

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Peter Barrow and David Gray.

141. Declarations of Interest

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

142. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2020 were confirmed and signed.

143. Public Participation

Representations by the public to the Committee on individual planning applications are detailed below. There were no questions, petitions or deputations received on other items on this occasion.

Page 131 144. Planning Applications

Members considered written reports submitted on planning applications as set out below.

145. WP/20/00150/OBL - Field South of Nottington Lane, Nottington Lane, Weymouth

The Committee considered an application for the modification of planning obligations on a Section 106 Agreement dated 26th June 2017 of planning application WP/17/00271/OUT which granted permission for 340 dwellings.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application, informing members that the modification related to a reduction in the area of public open space from 4.75 to 4.7 hectares. Given that a development of this site would ordinarily require 1.53 hectares of open space, 4.7 hectares remained a significant over provision of open space.

The modification also sought a change in how the open spaces were to be provided from 4 large play spaces to 12 smaller play areas of 250 square metres.

The key issue was highlighted as being the reduction in public open space by 0.05 hectares.

Members sought clarification on the nature of the smaller play areas and impact on future maintenance schedules given that larger play areas were easier to maintain.

It was confirmed that not all of the 12 play areas would comprise fully equipped play equipment in the traditional sense and that some of the areas would involve natural play.

Proposed by Cllr Nick Ireland, seconded by Cllr Susan Cocking.

Decision That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to modify the S106 agreement dated 26thJune 2017 of planning application WP/17/00271/OUT to:

- Modify the public open space provision to a total of 4.70ha

146. WD/D/20/000228 - Land at Jesmond Farm, Monmouth Gardens, Beaminster

The Committee considered an application to erect a dwelling on land at Jesmond Farm.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application and an aerial photo of the site showed a paddocked area within a wider agricultural field accessed by an existing access along Monmouth Gardens.

2 Page 132 The location was just outside the Defined Development Boundary (DDB) and the high risk flood area although the access was just within the flood area.

The key planning issues were highlighted, including:-  Principle of development  Visual impact and the AONB  Flood risk

The applicant had submitted an evacuation plan to deal with a flood event. The property was easily accessed from the town and added to the housing supply.

A written representation by the Agent in support of the application was read out by the Administration Assistant and is attached to these minutes.

Members highlighted that there was no mention in the report of possible contamination and were informed that a condition could be added to require the applicants to notify the Planning Authority if contamination was found. The addition of such a condition was supported by the Committee.

The Chairman highlighted that the proposal was not in the Local or Neighbourhood Plans nor was this an affordable dwelling.

Proposed by Cllr Nick Ireland, seconded by Cllr Kate Wheller.

Decision: That the application be approved subject to the conditions, including an additional condition in relation to contamination, as outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

147. WD/D/20/000583 - 82 East Street, Beaminster, DT8 3DT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing bungalow and erection of 5 dwellings that had been deferred for a site visit at the meeting on 9 July 2020.

The Enforcement Manager updated the committee that a further representation had been received from Mr Dixon objecting on grounds of highways and access, details of which he had e-mailed to all members of the Area Planning Committee.

An additional plan submitted showed the proposed pedestrian and vehicular access proposals ‘as existing’ and ‘as proposed’ for clarification purposes as requested by the Chairman at the previous meeting.

A short video of the site had been circulated to members in lieu of a physical site visit due to the restrictions imposed by the COVID 19 Pandemic in relation to group gatherings.

Members were given a similar presentation that was received at the meeting on 9 July 2020. Extra slides had been added at the request of the Chairman showing the existing and proposed wider site access with the footpath running

3 Page 133 alongside and bollards along the gable wall at No 80 East Street; and similarly for the existing and proposed pedestrian access with a kissing gate onto East Street.

The key planning points were highlighted, including :-

 Principle of development  Design  Conservation Area and AONB  Neighbouring amenity  Highways  Biodiversity/nature conservation  Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The Chairman reminded members that they would have needed to have seen the video, attended the site, or have good knowledge of East Street in order to participate in the debate on this application.

The Vice-Chairman stated that he was concerned with the narrowness of East Street and referred to the NPPF which stated that development should only be refused on highway grounds if there was an unacceptable impact on highway safety which he felt to be the case in this instance. Even with the increased width of the vehicular access, he considered that vehicles would need to pull out across the road in order to see and there was no pavement along East Street to offer protection to pedestrians. He referred to a previous objection to an application at Hollymoor Gardens due to the highways impact on East Street and that this, and the narrowness of the street should be taken into consideration in this proposal.

Other members expressed similar serious concerns in relation to highway safety. They considered that the single vehicular access from this development onto East Street was potentially hazardous, given the nature of East Street and lack of visibility splay due to the buildings either side of this access. It was noted that there was some inconsistency with the advice given by the highways authority in relation to viewing mirrors.

Referring to comments made about a previous application at Hollymoor Gardens for a single dwelling and vehicular access, the Enforcement Manager advised that this application had initially been refused, but then allowed on appeal. At that time, the Planning Inspector addressed the main issue of impact on the highway network in that area and explained why the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on the highway and complied with Local Plan policy as not being so severe as to warrant refusal.

The Highways Officer stated that taking into account the outcome of the appeal decision in the vicinity, the low speed environment, the presence of multiple accesses onto East Street without onsite turning and the likely amount of vehicular trips generated as a result of this scheme, he did not consider that this formed a reason for refusal that would be sustainable on highway grounds on appeal.

4 Page 134 The Chairman stated that the majority of houses in East Street were built in stone and, whilst the new dwellings would not be totally stone faced, they would be outside the DDB, at odds with the majority of houses in this street and were not affordable housing. Recent homes built in East Street had a much wider access and were entirely stone faced. He therefore also had severe concerns in relation to materials as well as access that had been described by officers as "sandwiched".

The Enforcement Manager explained that the term "sandwiched" had been used to describe the position of the access between 2 gable walls that provided no visibility splay whatsoever. This would mean that vehicles would need to come out of the access at very low speeds as indicated by the Planning Inspector for a development on Portland, also referred to in the report. In terms of the materials, a condition could be included that the properties shall all be stone in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.

The Vice-Chairman remained concerned about the narrowness of the street and lack of pavements, despite comments made by the Highways Officer and that this development could add to the problem.

Cllr Susan Cocking raised further concern with the comparison made with the application on Portland as parking implications were a significant issue on Portland and that the access for this proposal was onto a narrow street with parked cars which was dangerous.

The Chairman highlighted that the proposal was outside the DDB and the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan and would affect residential amenity, and that the Committee could refuse the application on highways grounds.

The Solicitor advised that the Committee should have regard to previous appeal decisions if minded to refuse this application. However, if members considered that there were differences in circumstances that meant that members could differentiate on highways grounds from previous appeal decisions then this would be appropriate, provided that the reasons were drafted comprehensively and reasonably. However, there remained a possibility that the Council could face costs on appeal.

Cllr Sarah Williams agreed that the access was dangerous, onto a narrow street with no pavements, parked cars and an access point opposite leading to more homes. She did not view this access as being suitable for this number of houses and potential number of cars given that the road was heavily used by pedestrians walking into the centre of Beaminster.

Cllr Susan Cocking proposed that the application be refused under paragraph 109 of the NPPF due to the unacceptable impact on highway safety. This was seconded by Cllr Sarah Williams.

The meeting adjourned from 11:18 -11:33am in order that officers could draft the reasons for refusal based on the highways concerns raised by members.

5 Page 135 The meeting reconvened and the Chairman wished to consider some further reasons for refusal. The Solicitor advised that any additional reasons for refusal should be agreed by the proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse the application.

Some additional reasons for refusal were debated, including materials, the lack of affordable housing and that the site was outside the DDB and not in the Local Plan.

The Area Manager - Western and Southern read out the reasons for refusal on highways grounds.

The meeting was adjourned for a further period from 11.42am to 11.50am in order that officers could draft the further reasons for refusal.

The following reasons for refusal were shared by way of a presentation slide for the benefit of members of the Committee and the public.

1. The application site is outside of the defined development boundary for Beaminster and the proposal is not for affordable housing and as such it does not form an exception site. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policy SUS2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015) which seeks to strictly control development outside defined development boundaries. The benefits of the proposal (the addition of a net increase in 4 dwellings to the housing supply) would not outweigh the harm in permitting a development outside the defined development boundary in the planning balance.

2. The proposed development will generate further traffic and pedestrian movements along East Street, a County highway with variable and limited carriageway and footway widths. Furthermore the vehicular access to the site is narrow and lacking any visibility splays. In the absence of the construction of, or programme for, a detailed improvement scheme designed to provide suitable and appropriate traffic management and safety enhancements for this street or to improve the width and visibility splays of the access, this development would be likely to cause danger and inconvenience to all highway users resulting in a severe impact on highway safety. Hence the scheme would be contrary to policy COM7 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015) and Para 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

3. In the absence of a S106 agreement to secure a financial contribution to off-site ecological mitigation it is considered that the proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of semi-improved grassland in which are present Dorset Notable species and as such the development would adversely impact on biodiversity contrary to Policy ENV2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015), Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF) and as such the refusal of the planning application accords with paragraph 175 of the NPPF.

6 Page 136 The proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse the application confirmed that they were content with the reasons as set out.

Proposed by Cllr Susan Cocking, seconded by Cllr Sarah Williams.

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

148. WD/D/19/000797 - St Andrews House, St Andrews Trading Estate, Shoe Lane, Bridport, DT6 3EX

The Committee considered an application for the formation of a first floor walkway and seating area which users of the facility could use as outdoor amenity space.

Members received a presentation on the proposal that was within the DDB and ancillary to leisure facilities, cafe and day nursery. The site was on an industrial estate with no nearby residential houses.

An objection had been received from the Parish Council on the grounds that the walkway overlooked the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) of the river and Asker Valley.

The main planning issues were outlined including:-

 a small scale development within the DDB  no nearby residential use  use as an outside seating space for staff  no change of use  noise impact minimal within the trading estate  no impact on parking or trees  hours of use controlled 0800 to 2000 (a typographical error that stated 2200 in the presentation was corrected)

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the existing uses of the building was covered in condition 5 of the proposal.

Members highlighted that a licence to sell alcohol had recently been granted for the building, however, given the hours of operation of the building some members did not consider this to be unduly concerning. An alternative view was expressed that the impact of the licensing on the overall use of the building was not favourable.

Proposed by Cllr Jean Dunseith, seconded by Cllr Kelvin Clayton.

Decision: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

7 Page 137 149. WD/D/19/003186 - Homestead Farm, Main Street, Bothenhampton, Bridport, DT6 4BJ

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an original farmhouse in the Conservation Area and the erection of a new 4 bed low carbon house (with variation of condition 1 of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 to amend approved plans).

The Enforcement Manager presented the Section 73a application that sought to vary the plans list condition for the previously approved planning permission for the site. A number of Non-Material Amendment applications (NMAs) had subsequently been approved, but the latest received in 2019 was refused. This was due to the cumulative changes sought not being accepted as an NMA which left the only option to regularise the building as now built and to be completed in the form of a Section 73a application.

Members were shown a site location plan, showing a red line dividing the built form and garden/ allotment areas and terraced properties on the north side accessed by a higher footpath level to the road; the site location in relation to the village centre and nearby listed buildings, Conservation Area (CA) and DDB; an aerial photo of the land before development and former farmhouse buildings along Main Street sloping downwards and Village Hall; google views before redevelopment of the farmhouse at right angles to other buildings down the slope of the land and access footway to the properties along Main Street.

Members were also shown various plans of the "Y" shape development and lower level garage accessed via Main Street and the garden area / private allotment with an access off Duck Street.

A number of photos were shown of the development including the structure as built, the garage set at a lower level off Main Street; the Main Street and Duck Street accesses and the general vicinity of the development.

He confirmed that no Highways objection had been made in relation to the slope of the driveway leading to the garage.

Slides were shown of the as built and as approved floor plans which showed a similar building in terms of its footprint and accommodation, however, the building had been "tweaked" on the various levels and was now further towards Main Street showing how it had not been built in accordance with the approved plans. Comparisons were also shown of the as approved and as built elevations showing the differences in height of various elements of the building.

The key planning points were highlighted including:-

 Principle of development  Design  CA / AONB  Neighbouring amenity

8 Page 138  Highways  Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

A number of written representations objecting to the application and one in support by the Agent were received and are attached to these minutes. Some of these were read out at the meeting by the Administration Assistant in accordance with the revised Public Speaking Protocol for Area Planning Committee meetings.

Cllr David Bolwell - Dorset Council - Bridport, addressed the Committee stating that many changes had been made to the original plans approved by West Dorset District Council, which had already been reduced in size further to comments by the Conservation Officer. A survey paid for by residents revealed that the positioning and heights of the development were wrong and the heights contained in paragraph 6.17 of the report were different to those submitted in the NMAs. Approximately 10 metres of hedgerow along Duck Street had also been removed. The fallback position was that this development was not built to the original specification and both residents and the Parish Council had lost faith in the planning system. The development had been littered with non-compliance issues and he asked the Committee to refuse the application based on mass, height, ENV16 and Bridport Neighbourhood Plan D1 and D8.

Cllr Nick Ireland stated that he had visited the site the previous evening and was mostly concerned with the huge discrepancy in the heights and that moving the wings further up the slope had served to increase the impact in terms of height.

The Enforcement Manager advised that the height discrepancy in the report relied on hand drawn plans provided by applicant and the reasons for the discrepancy in heights was set out in paragraph 6.19 of the report.

The Solicitor advised that members should consider the building "as built" and whether its height had a planning impact which was unacceptable, and provide reasons.

Cllr Kelvin Clayton read an extract from the original design and impact statement and queried the absence of green roofing in the development. He said that the plans for the original wings were downslope and barely visible and that he had stood in the same spot where the wings now obliterated the views. He therefore considered that the application went against a number of material considerations. He asked whether there was any independent verification between surveys provided by the applicant and residents and referred to the lack of comment by the Conservation Officer and Historic England in the report.

The Enforcement Manager stated that he could not confirm whether the Conservation Officer had visited the site, however, he had done so as the case officer and it was his responsibility to balance the concerns of all representatives with the planning considerations. He confirmed that there

9 Page 139 was no independent survey and that he had relied on the applicants to provide details in relation to heights.

He emphasised that members needed to look at the building "as built" and assess the resultant planning harm if members felt that the building was too dominating and overbearing.

Cllr Kate Wheller stated that she was incensed by this application and that it was not appropriate for in the centre of a Conservation Area. She drew attention to comments made by the agent and that there were appreciable differences in height and the development was much nearer to Main Street than what was approved. She questioned the lack of accurate plans and how the building was almost completed when it was known that there were significant differences from the approved plans. She considered that this showed a lack of respect and total disregard for the planning process that had not happened accidentally in her view.

Cllr Jean Dunseith agreed with this view and expressed her concern in relation to roof heights on both wings due to the need to accommodate services, that the wings were closer to Main Street and higher when viewed from the road. She felt that the technical considerations in relation to the roof heights should have been resolved before the original permission had been granted and viewed the way in which this development had taken place as being very sloppy.

The Solicitor stated that he understood why members should feel that the development proceeding in this way showed disrespect to the planning system, however, the legislation allowed retrospective permission in respect of such scenarios which legislators envisaged might happen. Any decision to refuse the application on the basis of roof heights would require valid planning reasons.

Other members agreed with the views already expressed and that the height of the building affected the Conservation Area and neighbour amenity, the repositioning of the wing causing a considerable difference to the closeness to homes on Main Street. The Chairman further commented that the building contrasted with the great character and charm of the village and the street scene in the Conservation Area and village hall.

Cllr Kelvin Clayton referred to the 2 main planning issues highlighted in paragraph 16.1 of the report and proposed refusal of the application on the basis of the Neighbourhood Plan HT2; Local Plan ENV10.1 and NPPF 127c. This was seconded by Cllr Kate Wheller.

The meeting was adjourned from 15.42am to 15.45am in order that officers could draft the wording of the reasons for refusal based on the concerns of the Committee.

The following reasons for refusal were shared by way of a presentation slide for the benefit of members of the Committee and the public.

10 Page 140 1 The proposal is a visually dominating and prominent built form of development, out of character to the area. The site is located within the Conservation Area and where the wider setting of that area is affected such that the proposal does not ‘preserve’ or ‘enhance’ that area as is required and set out given the statutory Section 72 test of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. On that basis it has an adverse impact on the existing Conservation Area character and harms the Conservation Area character and appearance. That harm would be less than substantial but there are no wider public benefits arising from the proposal that would outweigh that harm in the planning balance. As such the proposal would not be in accordance with Policies ENV4, ENV10 or ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) ; Policies HT2, D1 & D8 of the Bridport Neighbourhood Plan; nor paragraph 127 and section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and in particular para 192 which states:

In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

The proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse the application confirmed that they were content with the wording of the reasons.

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

150. WD/D/20/000253 - Beach Chalet adjacent car park, Charmouth Beach, Lower Sea Lane, Charmouth

The Committee considered an application to vary Condition 1 of Planning Permission 1/D/13/000282 amending the occupancy condition in relation to a Beach Chalet that had been converted from former toilets to a chalet in 2002.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the planning history with regard to conditions. This application represented a further relaxation to allow use as holiday accommodation between 1 March and 31st October each year but not for ancillary sales or serving of food and/or drink.

11 Page 141 An additional representation had been received in objection of the scheme following publication of the agenda wishing the chalet to be returned to its former use as a toilet block and raising issues of ownership. This was included in the update sheet circulated to members prior to the meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the change of use had happened in 2013 and was not relevant to this application. She had also checked ownership and the applicant had signed the relevant certificate which was satisfactory to validate this application.

A written objection by Charmouth Parish Council was read out by the Administration Assistant and is attached to these minutes.

In response to questions it was confirmed that the new condition would allow the chalet to be let out to people outside of friends and family within the timeframe of 1 March to 31 October.

Some members agreed with the view expressed by Charmouth Town Council that the current conditions were adequate.

The Area Manager - Western & Southern explained that if minded to refuse, members should consider the harm caused by the variation in the condition, particularly given recent ministerial advice on a more flexible and relaxed approach to extending the season to help the UK economy.

The Solicitor explained that the test for imposing conditions must be for a planning purpose and be reasonable, proportionate and enforceable. Members should therefore consider the planning harm in letting the chalet on a commercial basis as opposed to friends and family.

Concerns were also raised in relation to increased lighting, however, members were informed that the proposal did not include any physical changes and that lighting would comprise development.

Proposed by Cllr Susan Cocking, seconded by Cllr David Shortell.

Decision: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

151. Urgent items

There were no urgent items.

12 Page 142 152. Update Sheet

Application Ref. Address Agenda ref. Page no. WD/D/20/000583 82 EAST STREET, Item 6a 43-74 BEAMINSTER, DT8 3DT

Update(s): 1 further representation from occupiers Mr Dixon objecting on grounds of highways and access, details of which he has emailed to all Planning Cttee Members.

1 additional plan submitted (Site Access Plan - Drawing Number 11352 - 10 Rev A) showing the proposed pedestrian and vehicular access proposals ‘as existing’ and ‘as proposed’ for clarification purposes

Application Ref. Address Agenda ref. Page no. WD/D/20/00253 Beach Chalet, Charmouth Item 6f 115 - 121

Update(s):

1 representation received 11.8.20 from Dr Anthony Farmer, objection. Due to shortage of toilets at the beach. Raised issue about land ownership when the toilet block was built that is not on Evans land.

Appendix - Decision List

Duration of meeting: 10.00 am - 4.10 pm

Chairman

13 Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 144 Minute Item 143

Western & Southern Area Planning Committee - 12 August 2020 Written Submissions

WD/D/20/000228 - Land at Jesmond Farm, Monmouth Gardens, Beaminster

Rachel Bird (Agent)

Morning Councillors. This statement is made by the Agent for the application in support of the proposals.

This application has been carefully prepared by the Applicant and the project team. We are pleased to read that the proposal has been by recommended for approval subject to conditions by your Authority’s Case Officer.

Concerns have been raised by the Town Council with regard to potential flooding on the site. Both the Environment Agency and your Authority’s Technical Services team however raise no objection to the proposals in this regard. The proposed dwelling is sited on land within Flood Zone 1, which is the least liable to flooding, with only a short section of the access track being within Flood Zones 2/3. The consultee responses note that there is a higher level of surface water flood risk to the west of the site area however this can be managed on site, so that the flood risk is not exacerbated locally. A detailed surface water management scheme is recommended as condition 7, which will be submitted to your officers for consideration prior to the commencement of development.

The Applicant had instructed a Landscape Assessment which concludes that the site is visually well contained and would not harm the character of the Dorset AONB. The proposed landscaping scheme will include substantial reinforcement and thickening of the existing field boundary and include improvements to the roadside setting, resulting in minor beneficial improvements. The detailing of this scheme and maintenance will be secured by recommended condition 3.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the site lies outside the defined development boundary of Beaminster (Local Plan Policy SUS2), the council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land and thus the policies for the supply of housing are considered to be out-of-date and the NPPF Paragraph 11d) is invoked. The site is considered to be a sustainable and suitable location for development, adjacent to the current settlement boundary, and close to the existing services which the town offers. The proposed 3bed dwelling of one and a half storeys is a modest proposal with larch boarding and brick detailing.

There have been no third-party objections to the proposal during the course of the application. The Applicant is keen to secure a well-designed permanent residence on the site, following a spate of burglaries and break-ins at the adjacent business to the

Page 15145 north (Fox Joinery), which is in the Applicants’ ownership. It is anticipated that the natural surveillance from a dwelling in this location will significantly reduce the level of crime in the local area.

Thank you for your time Councillors. It is hoped that you can support your officers’ recommendation and consideration of technical consultees on this proposal.

PagePage 146 16 WD/D/19/003186 - Homestead Farm, Main Street, Bothenhampton, Bridport, DT6 4BJ Simon Brody

Firstly, thank you for allowing me to speak. I object to this application.

The original planning application in 2018 contained photomontages – as an aid to interpreting the formaldrawings – which showed the existing buildings being re-built with additional wings down slope which were barely visible. Quite reasonably this was granted permission.

What was built, and which this current application purports to show is completely different. Buildings have not been rebuilt as before, the wings are 1.3m higher, are up to 3m closer to the road and materials used are alien to the Bothenhampton Conservation Area.

I carried out some rough surveys of the as built structure, and established the extent of the non-compliance. Having worked with your officers in the past, planners, conservationists, building control, engineers, highways, (public servants all) I felt very strongly that I would do all I could to make them aware of what appeared to be a flagrant breach of the original permission.

I engaged four consultants who proved the point, and they, very honourably, have produced damning reports which are included in my written submission.

These reports were made available to your officers, and it would be presumptuous to assume they had any great influence, but in October 2019, your officers concluded that the project, as built, did not enjoy the benefit of planning permission, and as a consequence any previously granted NMAs were invalid. A retrospective application would be required.

Does this current application have the same features as those shown in the original application - in particular the photomontages? No it does not. The pre-existing buildings have not been replicated, the wings are highly visible, the garage drive is dangerous, the materials of construction have no place in this conservation area, to name but a few transgressions. A number of listed properties in Main Street are now compromised, as indeed is your Council’s own Conservation Report.

Had this application been presented in 2018 it would have been rejected out of hand. To grant permission now would be to endorse a witting breach of the original planning permission. I recommend that this committee rejects the current application.

Page 17147 Graham Styles I object to the above application. The building is completely out of scale and sympathy with its surroundings, and has greatly damaged the centre of a historic village.

I welcome the Committee’s scrutiny of this case, and appreciate the chance to comment.

This extremely large development is surrounded by listed buildings, and is in a conservation area in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In the original Design and Access Statement, on which planning approval in April 2018 was based, certain assurances were made; for example, that the building would respect the conservation area and would not impact existing views; that existing building materials would be re-used; and even that apple trees would be carefully re-located.

None of the assurances were respected. Our conservation area has been damaged by the sheer size and scale of the building; the materials used jar with the surroundings (hardly a single stone appears to have been re-used); and as for the poor apple trees, it seems they were “relocated” to the great orchard in the sky a long time ago.

Why give these assurances in the first place, I wonder?

Of even more concern is the fact - established through the persistence and money of local residents - that the building is substantially higher and closer to the road than it should be; and is thus all the more overbearing in relation to its surroundings. It’s striking that even casual visitors to the village genuinely believe the building is a hotel.

Any application for alterations to listed buildings in the vicinity of Homestead Farm is rightly scrutinised, and rejected if it doesn’t comply with the regulations. It would be wholly inconsistent and unfair, therefore, to permit such glaring departures from the agreed scheme in this case, given the damage caused to the area.

To do so would also be inconsistent with the relevant local plans, given the weight these attach to enhancing and preserving the local environment.

I very much hope therefore that the Committee will reject the application.

PagePage 148 18 Sarah Butcher As a resident of Main Street, Bothenhampton, I am writing to express my objections to the development at Homestead Farm (WD/D/19/003186) before the coming planning meeting on August 13th. You will be aware that there is strong feeling against this development. I wish to stress that this is not simply a reflection of retrograde nimbyism: this is a hugely substantial and dominant site in the centre of an historic village. Any building constructed risked altering the character of its surroundings. Had the building been constructed in adherence with the plans, this building would have been sympathetic and the impact mitigated. Instead, the building is far more intrusive than planners condoned and is to the considerable detriment of historic Bothenhampton. When taking the many infringements into account, including -most significantly - buildings well over 1m higher than planned and 3m closer to the road than permitted, councillors should know that this is not an ordinary development. This is no average residential building for family occupation: it is a £4m development (according to the website of Hart Design and Construction, which constructed the building) on a 5,000 square metre site. It is a hugely significant development for Bridport, let alone Bothenhampton. Given its pivotal village centre location it should have been constructed as sensitively as possible. Instead, we have a situation where the historic centre of a village, changed very little for hundreds of years, has suddenly been altered overnight by a construction resembling a municipal leisure centre. It’s not just residents who object: visitors to the village are aghast and stop to gape. The excessive height of the construction combined with its proximity to the road, both of which contravene stipulations made in the original planning permission to ensure the building blended into its surroundings, have made this building substantially different to that originally envisaged by the council. The architects and the owners were made aware of villagers’ realisation that the construction of Homestead Farm contravened the plans as early as February 2019. So too was Dorset Council’s planning enforcement team. However, villagers’ complaints were initially dismissed by all three parties and it was only after the village employed its own team of architects and planning consultants at some expense that the architects finally conceded that the building did not adhere to the plans. Having finally made this admission, the subsequent argument of the architects and owners has been that the changes are so negligible as to be immaterial. This is absolutely not the case. With a building of this size, in a location of this sensitivity, the changes have entirely altered the landscape and will damage Bothenhampton in perpetuity unless rectified.

Page 19149 Pat Brody Thank you for this opportunity to address the Committee. In support of my letter dated 19th February 2020 I wish to stress the following in objection:

In this current submission there is a drawing 1702L 004 Rev A which is listed “As Approved”. That drawing shows the proposed ridge height of the Clay Roof part of the Farmhouse at the same level as the pre-existing Farmhouse ridge. The surveyed level of the Farmhouse ridge was on a survey drawing supplied by the Applicant as 31.97 AOD. Therefore in accordance with that “Approved” drawing the proposed ridge height for the Farmhouse is the same level ie 31.97 AOD. This drawing is indeed an Approved Drawing under the terms of the original Planning Permission. It was also submitted under application WD/D/19/000355/NMA which the Planning Officer advises in his report was Approved.

However in contradiction, in the Design, Access and Planning Statement for this current application there is a table of levels, which your Planning Officer has accepted, and commented on. This shows the Farmhouse approved ridge level at 32.472. This demonstrates that the table of levels, which your Officer has relied upon for comment, is actually grossly in error.

As a Committee you need to ask yourselves are you prepared to endorse gross inaccuracies submitted as part of the application. I would venture to suggest that you would not wish to do this and therefore you should reject this application.

PagePage 150 20 Jane Paterson Many years ago I was a Community Nurse/Midwife in Dorset. Bothenhampton was on my Patch. Many an hour was spent visiting folk on the high pavement, from which we could gaze across the valley with uninterrupted views over a quintessentially English landscape towards the sea. I am appalled that such a blot on this village, which is a unique example of what we are good at preserving in England, has been allowed. Natural Forest Marble dwellings, mingling along meandering lines throughout the village have been spoiled by this ugly edifice which is out of place in a Conservation area. That the Masonry alteration on Main Street alone has drawn ‘No Comment’ from the very organisations that serve to preserve our Heritage, is both concerning and perplexing. I like many others who object to this dwelling, am passionate about keeping our country special. England is the envy of the world for our quaint and beautiful villages. New housing of grand design is of course a novel concept, but totally unsuitable in this place. What set out to be an ‘Eco’ house has probably produced enough carbon in the making thereof, to make that claim a joke. I have noted the trajectory ( I can’t call it progress ) of this application, with both interest and sadness. Change after change under the guise of Non Material Amendment, has seemingly been allowed to sail through, it would seem with simply a nod. Heights have been drastically changed, the driveway access to the property from Main Street is dangerous and one doesn’t have to be a Highways engineer to work that out. To argue that point is an insult to anyone’s intelligence. The removal of so much hedge in Duck street is a travesty. In a Conservation Area such as Bothenhampton, under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas ) Act of 1990, permission should be sought for this. It is mandatory for the local authority to be notified six weeks in advance of work being carried out, so that the authority can consider whether or not to impose a tree preservation order. It is a criminal offence to undertake work in a Conservation Area without consent, and as I understand it, the local planning authority can insist that the work is reversed. I cannot find evidence of consent having been given, and since hedges are but small trees, permission should have been obtained before the hedge was ripped out. Putting in a pond and a bog garden is probably not going to stop flooding. Over 40 residents, many of whom have lived in the village for decades, are distraught at losing their views and their dark skies. I join them in voicing my strong opposition.

Page 21151 Brian Cattell The original Planning Application for these works were revised to apply size reduction and height reduction and also specific materials in keeping with the village Conservation Area. The Applicant has deliberately presented vague drawings and information, which should never have been accepted by Planning Dept for a development of this size in such a prominent location, and had successfully conned Dorset Planning Dept. to agree with NMA's These were later rightfully rejected! This whole development has been an exercise in blindsiding the Planners who who have taken no notice of their own Conservation Area, ANOB Area and Local Plan regulations and requirements. The report from Darren Rogers (I question if he has ever visited the site) does not go any way to addressing the problems and effort put in by residents to get this building built to Planning requirements and Planners to implement their own regulations. He does point out the fact that there are over 40 objections listed against this Application - please read and note! After all - what is the Planning Dept. for. Going on this Application it is not fit for purpose and a waste of Council Tax Payers money This is a 4 bedroom - £4,000,000 development which is way out of keeping with the locale and Local Plan, and as built Totally out of character with the Conservation Village. I fear the Planning Dept. was duped by the Eco-friendly "low carbon" quote in the Application! There is no Environmental/ecological conservation in stripping out over 15 metres of existing historic hedgerow to create an access to the "Agricultural area" , over a private road which there is no proven authority to use, when access is perfectly feasible through the site (as is being used by the applicant and all contractors at present and during the last 2&1/2 years of construction). Or stripping out all existing Flora and fauna and raising levels by some 2 mtrs (is planning permission needed to raise levels?),and putting up innumerable sheds, housings and structures on same area. The amendments to the original Planning are NOT "minor"

Enforce the original Planning or Demolish!

PagePage 152 22 David Pencheon You will have no shortage of reading with respect to the Homestead Farm debacle in Bothenhampton (WD/D/19/003186) so I will be as succinct as I can in highlighting the most obvious, the most important and the most factual discrepancies and inaccuracies within the report due to be presented on Wednesday. I simply cannot understand why is the planning officer’s report that is understating the height increases that the applicants have already admitted to exceeding by much more. Not 004m for the ‘old barn’ or 0.68m for ‘bedroom cottage’ but, according to the independent architect’s report a height excess of this building at over 1.3m. You will have read about a whole series of contraventions that the applicant is responsible for that, when looked at together have made a mockery of the planning process, even more so considering this is a sensitive conservation area. It beggars belief that an enormous £4m building which now dominates the centre of this historic village could ever be described as a family home – I don’t know how many visitors to the village have stopped and asked me if it is an hotel or a sports centre? It is grotesquely incongruous the listed buildings it now dominates. Any reasonable person is bound to ask that, if the height and other contraventions to the original plans are now considered insignificant, what then will Dorset Council say to other planning infringements in less sensitive sites? Are we to believe that a 1 metre height difference is now an acceptable variation in semi completed structures? Can we now expect that any variations in a near completed built structure can be forgiven on the grounds that the initial drawing was only really an approximation anyway? I am afraid that if these plans proceed, then it will be clear that there is a failure of due process at every level and at every stage of this planning that has so blighted this part of Bridport. As anyone got the courage to stand up and formally scrutinise this bulldozing of proper procedures? Fortunately, this Wednesday offers a last chance for the planning committee to put matters right, draw a line in the sand, and uphold the probity and governance that citizens have a right to expect.

Page 23153 Bothenhampton and Walditch Parish Council

Bothenhampton and Walditch Parish Council objects strongly to this current development.

The original, agreed plans have not been respected; on the contrary, there have been very significant divergences. Independent surveys commissioned by local residents have shown that the building is over one metre too high; and that the two wings are up to three metres closer to Main Street than they should be, and thus all the more intrusive. Nor is the building composed of local materials.

In every respect, therefore, it is overbearing and unsympathetic in relation to the surrounding buildings and its setting.

The sensitive location of this exceptionally large development, in a conservation area surrounded by listed buildings, would demand stringent compliance with the agreed, original planning application. Unfortunately, this has not happened.

The development has not only damaged the centre of a historic village, to the consternation of many local residents, but it is also surely contrary to the relevant provisions of local plans and the importance these attach to conserving and enhancing the local environment.

The Parish Council therefore trusts the Committee will reject the current application.

PagePage 154 24 Andy Partridge (Agent) As this application was made under Section 73, the original planning permission remains unaffected by today’s decision. The original planning permission (and approved alterations) is the baseline by which to assess the proposal. It is essentially the fall-back position.

The as-approved dwelling is a substantial, complex house (consisting of multiple and angled façades of differing heights) set in a large plot. The changes to the design should be considered in this planning context.

The modifications, including increases and decreases in the dimensions of the elements making up the building, and the change to the angle of the southwest wing, are slight. This is confirmed by your conservation officer who has stated that the changes are minor in nature. There is also some local support for the changes.

Looking at the design changes, no two views are the same. Views across the valley were partly contained pre-development. The as-built scheme also contains views across the valley.

Thus, the changes to the heights of Winter Garden, Diary Barn and Bedroom Cottage elements do not make any appreciable difference, while the shortening of Dairy Barn, Bedroom Cottage and the Farmhouse compensates for any small loss of view above the buildings. When viewed from the far side of the valley changes are imperceptible. Also, the cranking of the southwest wing by 2 degrees is unnoticeable.

The evidence from the experts is clear. In considering the impact on the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings and, by extension the AONB, there have been no adverse comments from Historic England, Natural England, Highways (to any element of the scheme) or the Conservation Officer.

The Officer’s Report identifies no impact on neighbours’ amenity in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly bearing in mind that the dwelling is sited centrally in its plot and the very large gaps between the properties that border it.

By relocating the entrance of Duck Street by 175cm south, it avoids utility services and is again a minor change.

The improvement to the ecological credentials of this low carbon house now including a pond will improve biodiversity and is endorsed by policy of the Dorset Natural Environment Team.

If in the event committee are minded to refuse the application, we would request a COVID secure site visit.

We ask you to follow the expert evidence and approve this application.

Page 25155 WD/D/20/000253 - Beach Chalet adjacent car park, Charmouth Beach, Lower Sea Lane, Charmouth

Charmouth Parish Council The Parish Council objects to this application as it is felt that the original approval in 2013 is adequate and it would not want to see the conditions relaxed any further.

PagePage 156 26 Appendix

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/20/00150/OBL

APPLICATION SITE: Field South of Nottington Lane, Nottington Lane, Weymouth

PROPOSAL: Modification of planning obligations on Section 106 Agreement dated 26th June 2017 of planning application WP/17/00271/OUT.

DECISION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to modify the S106 agreement dated 26thJune 2017 of planning application WP/17/00271/OUT to:

- Modify the public open space provision to a total of 4.70ha

Reason for Decision

It is considered that the proposed modification to the S106 would have an acceptable impact. The modification would involve the overall reduction in the provision of public open space from 4.75ha to 4.70ha resulting in an overall loss of 0.05ha. How the open space is provided would also change, the 4 play outposts (smaller defined play spaces) would be reduced in size individually from 400sqm to 250sqm but the number of play spots (incidental play spaces) would be increased from 4 to 12. The proposed provision as part of the outline application was in excess of that required. The proposed reduction in provision of 0.05ha to an overall provision of 4.70ha is still in excess of that required and therefore in this case the reduction in the public open space provision is considered acceptable.

Page 27157 APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/20/000228

APPLICATION SITE: Land at Jesmond Farm, Monmouth Gardens, Beaminster

PROPOSAL: Erect dwelling.

DECISION: Grant subject to conditions

1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan - Drawing Number 2726-03 - Rev A received on 29/01/2020 New House Ground Lines - Drawing Number 2726 -05 Rev A received on 29/01/2020 Proposed Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 2726-01 received on 29/01/2020 Proposed Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 2726-01 Rev A received on 29/01/2020 Site Plan - Drawing Number 2726-02 Rev C received on 29/01/2020 Site Plan - Drawing Number 2726-04 received on 29/01/2020 Proposed Landscape Strategy - Drawing Number 1107.02 A received on 22/06/2020

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3) Prior to the commencement of development above damp course level, a landscaping and tree planting scheme in accordance with the Proposed Landscape Strategy plan 1107.02 A, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full during the planting season November - March inclusive, immediately following commencement of the development. The scheme shall include details of species, provision for the maintenance and replacement as necessary of the trees and shrubs for a period of not less than 5 years and thereafter the maintenance and replacement shall be carried out on accordance with the approved scheme.

REASON: In the interest of visual amenity.

4) No development above Damp Proof Course (DPC) level shall be commenced until details and samples of all external facing materials for the walls and roofs shall have been 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 such materials as have been agreed. PagePage 158 28 REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development. 5) Prior to first occupation of the dwelling a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan shall be retained on site in accordance with the agreed details.

REASON: In order to safeguard the accommodation from unnecessary flood risk.

6) Before the development hereby approved is occupied the turning and parking shown on the submitted plans must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

REASON: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

7) No development 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 managed during construction and a timetable for the implementation of the scheme, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the submitted details and timetable for implementation.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding.

8) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority and an investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with requirements of BS10175 (as amended). Should any contamination be found requiring remediation, a remediation scheme, including a time scale for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. On completion of the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be prepared and submitted within two weeks of completion to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure the risks from contamination are minimised.

Informatives:

Right of Way – The applicant is advised that the granting of planning permission does not override the need for existing rights of way affected by the development to be kept open and unobstructed until the statutory procedures authorising closure or diversion have been completed. Developments, in so far as it affects a right of way should not be started until the necessary order for the diversion has come into effect.

Pollution Prevention during Construction – Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to minimise the risks of pollution and detrimental effectsPage to the water29159 interests in and around the site. Such safeguards should cover the use of plant and machinery, oils/chemicals and materials; the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles; the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds and the control and removal of spoil and wastes. We recommend the applicant refer to our Pollution Prevention Guidelines, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pollution-prevention-for- businesses

Waste Management -

Reason for Decision

 Absence of 5 year housing land supply.  The location is considered to be sustainable and the proposal is acceptable in its design and general visual impact.  It is not considered to result in any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.  There are no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this application.

PagePage 160 30 APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/20/000583

APPLICATION SITE: 82 East Street, Beaminster, DT8 3DT

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 5.no dwellings.

DECISION: Refuse for the following reasons:

Page 31161 APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/19/000797

APPLICATION SITE: St Andrews House, St Andrews Trading Estate, Shoe Lane, Bridport, DT6 3EX

PROPOSAL: Formation of first floor walkway and seating area.

DECISION: Grant subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan and Site Plan - Drawing Number 15/007/300 received on 15/03/2019 Proposed Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 15/007/302 A received on 02/06/2020

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3. The materials to be used for the walkway, stair and first floor seating area hereby approved shall be of metal construction finished in a colour to match the existing building.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.

4. The walkway and seating areas hereby approved shall be used between 08:00 and 20:00 only, on any day.

REASON: To safeguard the amenity of residential neighbours.

5. The walkway and seating areas hereby approved shall be used in association with the existing uses of the building as Class D1 for a Creche/Day Nursery and Class D2 – Leisure (Indoor Sports and Recreation together with Ancillary Cafe Facility), as outlined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 (as amended) or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, and for no other purposes.

REASON: To define the permission and to safeguard the character and appearance of the development and the surrounding area including the Dorset AONB and adjoining River Asker.

PagePage 162 32 Informative: The development should take account of standing advice from the Environment Agency regarding surface water management, access and evacuation, floor levels and flood resistance and resilience measures.

Reason for Decision

The proposal is for relatively small scale development on the existing Trading Estate within the DDB and the proposal is acceptable in its design and general visual impact.

There is not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity, flood risk the adjacent green open space or the wider AONB landscape.

There are no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this application.

Page 33163 APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/19/003186

APPLICATION SITE: Homestead Farm, Main Street, Bothenhampton, Bridport, DT6 4BJ

PROPOSAL: Demolition of original farmhouse in Conservation Area. Erection of 1.no. new 4 bed low carbon house (with variation of condition1 of planning approval WD/D/17/002888 to amend approved plans).

DECISION: Refuse for the following reasons:

1 The proposal is a visually dominating and prominent built form of development, out of character to the area. The site is located within the Conservation Area and where the wider setting of that area is affected such that the proposal does not ‘preserve’ or ‘enhance’ that area as is required and set out given the statutory Section 72 test of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. On that basis it has an adverse impact on the existing Conservation Area character and harms the Conservation Area character and appearance. That harm would be less than substantial but there are no wider public benefits arising from the proposal that would outweigh that harm in the planning balance. As such the proposal would not be in accordance with Policies ENV4, ENV10 or ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) ; Policies HT2, D1 & D8 of the Bridport Neighbourhood Plan; nor paragraph 127 and section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and in particular para 192 which states:

In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

PagePage 164 34 APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/20/000253

APPLICATION SITE: Beach Chalet adjacent car park, Charmouth Beach, Lower Sea Lane, Charmouth

PROPOSAL: Make alterations to convert redundant toilets to beach chalet (with variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission1/D/13/000282 amending the occupancy condition).

DECISION: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan received on 30/01/2020 Existing and Proposed plans and elevations - Drawing Number 20/1340/01A received on 07/06/2002

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2. The beach chalet hereby approved shall not be used as a permanent dwelling, nor for ancillary sales or serving of food and/or drink. Overnight holiday accommodation shall only take place between 1st March and 31st October each year and the owners shall keep a record of the overnight use which shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority on request.

REASON: To control the use of the Chalet in this location where residential and retail use would not be acceptable

Reason for Decision

The continued use of this building as a Beach Chalet is acceptable, but an increase of this use to a residential dwelling would be contrary to policy ENV7. Retail sales and serving food and drink is also considered to be inappropriate in this location. Therefore whilst the existing use is supported a revised, robust and updated condition is recommended to control the future use of the building.

Page 35165 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 166 Schedule of works to take homestead farm into site shutdown. V3. minor revs. 21.08.20

item no. item description of works reason 1 Repair damage to garage roof Temporary felt to damaged corner of garage roof structure To stop water ingress. 2 Flashing to junction of garage and dairy barn Complete flashing. To stop water ingress from driving rain. 3 Completion of all roof flashings Complete flashing. To stop water ingress from driving rain. 4 Render to exposed blockwork Scratch coat only to lower ground floor as it is more sheltered. Scratch coat and To stop frost damage and water ingress into exposed blockwork 1st coat only to farmhouse as it is more exposed. Final coats not to be applied.

5 Trims to all window and door apertures in blockwork, To enable scratch coat of render to be fitted. To stop frost damage and water ingress into exposed blockwork 6 Front door Fit front door and side window with full seals To maintain a steady internal building environment, stop water ingress and for fire/building security. 7 aluminium doors to rear. Complete commissioning of doors. To maintain a steady internal building environment, stop water ingress and for fire/building security. 8 Windows complete repairs and sealing of junctions with building envelope To maintain a steady internal building environment, stop water ingress and for fire/building security. 9 Heating Commission the heating system and have heating running at tick over. To avoid the interior of the building deteriorating 10 Mechanical Ventilation & Heating ( MVHR) System. Commission the MVHR system and have ventilation running at tick over. To avoid the interior of the building deteriorating 11 Fire Alarm System Commission the fire alarm system To protect the building from fire. 12 Security System Commission the security system To protect the building from vandalism and theft. 13 CCTV System Commission the CCTV system To protect the building from vandalism and theft. 14 Swimming pool Complete tiling and fill pool with water and pool cover( not heated to useable The pool only has a base coat of render. If not completed, the pool risks collapsing temperature) if there is a harsh winter, causing a safety risk to the building and site.

Page 167 Page 15 Rainwater pipes and gutters complete all connections To protect the building from damage and to minimises any chance of flash flooding from excessive rainfall. 16 Exposed incomplete joinery & connections Complete critical joinery and the connections. To protect the building from deterioration. 17 site access points Make secure-fit gates, secure heeras fence and fit padlocks To protect the site from vandalism and theft. 18 Foul drainage system Commission foul drainage and connect into the mains To protect the site and surrounding housing/roads from flooding. The house sanitary ware and kitchen is not connected, but the drainage system needs to be commissioned. 19 Storm Water Drainage System Commission the storm water drainage system To protect the site and surrounding housing/roads from flooding. The site storm water system is nearly completed and needs to be commissioned to stop the storm water backing up and causing flooding/damage to the house , site and surrounding buildings. 20 Missing internal glazing panel to winter garden. The winter garden has been designed as an external space and maintain the house in a steady state environment, this last glazed panel must be fitted.

21 Winter garden Commission the winter garden ventilation system. Complete walls and fit trace The palm trees for the winter garden have ben delivered to site and may not heating withstand an extreme winter. The winter garden will not be complete, but needs to be in a condition so that the trees can be fitted and be safe from the elements.

22 Roof- lightning protection Complete and commission lightning protection To protect the building from lightning strike damage and fire This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

1. Application Details

Reference: WP/20/00417/TEL

Site Location: Telecommunications Mast Site, Weymouth Way, Radipole, Weymouth.

Proposal: Installation of 18m high monopole supporting 6no. antennas & 3no. equipment cabinets & ancillary development.

Applicant: MBNL for and on behalf of Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd.

Case Officer: Huw Williams

Ward Member(s): Cllr Peter Barrow Cllr David Grey

Publicity: Advertised by public notices displayed on highway verge near to the application site on 15 July 2015 and 27 August 2020.

Determination Due By: 10 October 2020

Further information about the application may be inspected online through the application webpages accessible via: https://planning.dorset.gov.uk/public-access/.

Taking account of representations made during the course of the application, the Head of Service considers that under the provisions of Dorset Council’s constitution this application should be determined by the Area Planning Committee.

2. Recommendation

2.1 The applicant be informed that Dorset Council’s prior approval as the local planning authority is not required.

3. Reason for Recommendation

3.1 Having regard to policy: (i) COM10 (The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure); (ii) ENV1 (Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest); (iii) ENV2 (Wildlife and Habitats); (iv) ENV5 (Flood Risk); (v) Policy ENV10 (The Landscape and Townscape Setting); and (vi) ENV16 (Amenity), of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 and other material considerations including national planning policy and planning practice guidance, the proposed development is considered to be in general accordance with the development plan in force in the area. Details of the siting and appearance of the proposed development have been set out within the application and would be subject to conditions set out in Class A of Part 16 of the Schedule to the Town and

Page 169 Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended). The development would not be unduly detrimental to the appearance of the locality and the applicant has demonstrated that there is a need for the technology and that all technically feasible alternatives have been explored and that the application proposal results in the least visual harm. The application is therefore in accordance with policy COM10 of the Local Plan. The proposed development further accords with national planning policy for high quality communications set out in paragraphs 112 to 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019). Various concerns have been expressed in representations made about the application regarding the siting and appearance of the proposed apparatus and other matters. However, having considered the impact of the development, the rights of the applicant, the general interest and the public sector equalities duty, the opinion is that the proposed development as described in the application has been adequately justified and is satisfactory and that any effect on human rights, on protected characteristics and on the character, appearance and amenities of the locality do not outweigh the authorisation and permitting of the subject development in accordance with adopted and prescribed planning principles.

4. Summary of Main Issues Addressed in Report

4.1 The table summarises conclusions reached on the main issues addressed in the appraisal set out in section 11 of this report.

Issue: Conclusion:

Adequacy of justification for and of the Principle of development is not material other background information provided in to determination. Satisfied that adequate support of the proposed development. information provided in accordance with development plan, national planning policy and best practice guidance and proposed development is justified.

Impact on character and appearance of The development as proposed would not application site and surrounding area. be unduly detrimental to either the character, the appearance or the amenities of the locality.

Alternatives that would meet Proposal is in accordance with policy development need with less visual and/or COM10 of the Adopted Local Plan and environmental harm. may be regarded as the option resulting in least visual and environmental harm.

5. Background

5.1 MBNL for and on behalf of Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd (the applicant) applied to Dorset Council for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the council as the local planning authority would be required as to the siting and appearance of proposed development involving: (i) the installation of electronic communications apparatus; and

Page 170 (ii) development ancillary to radio equipment housing.

5.2 The application is made pursuant to Class A (electronic communications code operators) of Part 16 (Communications) of Schedule 2 (Permitted development rights) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The Order (as amended) is hereafter referred to as the GPDO.

5.3 Subject to exceptions, limitations and conditions, Class A of Part 16 defines as permitted development various developments by or on behalf of electronic communications code operators in, on, over or under land controlled by the operator for the purpose of the operator’s electronic communications network or which is otherwise in accordance with the electronic communications code. This includes provision for the installation, alteration or replacement of electronic communications apparatus and development ancillary to radio housing equipment.

5.4 Applications made under Class A of Part 16 of the GPDO are not applications for planning permission, development described within the class being, subject to limitations and conditions, ‘permitted development’. Accordingly, subject to compliance with the relevant limitations and conditions, the subject development benefits from planning permission granted by the GPDO and may then be undertaken as such.

5.5 Under the provisions of Class 16, for some types of development and in some locations, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting and appearance of the development. In this instance, application for such a determination is necessary because the proposed development involves the installation of a mast (the proposed monopole).

5.6 Amongst other details, applications under Class A of Part 16 must be accompanied by: (i) a written description of the proposed development and a plan indicating its proposed location; and (ii) evidence that the developer has given notice of the proposed development to any person (other than the developer) who is an owner or agricultural tenant of the land to which the development relates.

5.7 As a means of expediting the determination process, along with the mandated information, applicants frequently provide additional information including supplementary background documents and plans and drawings giving such further details of siting and appearance as might otherwise be required for subsequent consideration.

5.8 In this instance, in addition to the requisite application form, notice and location plan, the application includes: (i) plans and drawings providing details of the proposed siting and appearance of the proposed apparatus and radio equipment housing; (ii) a site specific Supplementary Information form based on the Supplementary Information Template set out in Appendix D of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development in England;

Page 171 (iii) pre-application consultation letters sent to the Planning Service, local ward members and Mr Richard Drax MP; (iv) background documents comprising:  the Institute of Engineering and Technology publication entitled ‘Allaying health concerns regarding 5G and exposure to radio waves’  an extract from the Local Government Association September 2019 guidance publication entitled ‘A councillor’s guide to digital connectivity’; and  a letter dated November 2019 to Local Authority Chief Executives from Matt Warman MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Digital Broadband regarding ‘5G – The Next Mobile Generation’; (v) a Supplementary Information Document dated 21.06.19 prepared by the applicant addressing ‘5G and Future Technology – Delivering the UK’s Telecoms Future’ and subtitled ‘Streetworks Monopoles in support of 5G’; and (vi) a Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines dated 2020-06-15.

5.9 The submitted application form describes the proposed telecommunications apparatus as ‘monopole and equipment cabinets to be installed’ and further describes the proposed development as:

“The installation of a new 18 metre high monopole supporting 6 no antennas with a wrap around equipment cabinet at the base of the column, the installation of 3 no. new equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto.”

5.10 Initial determination options for applications under Class A of Part 16 are: (i) that prior approval of siting and appearance is not required (in which case the proposed development may then be undertaken as permitted development); or (ii) that prior approval of siting and/or appearance is required.

5.11 Written notice of the Council’s determination and any subsequent approval or refusal must be provided within a prescribed time period or within such longer periods as may be agreed by the applicant and authority in writing or else the development may then commence as permitted development. In consequence, where prior approval is required, this may be a matter for immediate or subsequent consideration. It is, however, important to note that conditions are applied to any development undertaken as permitted development under the Class 16. Of particular note, condition A.2(9) of Class A of Part 16 of the GPDO provides that:

“The development must, except to the extent that the local planning authority otherwise agree in writing, be carried out– (a) where prior approval has been given … in accordance with the details approved; (b) in any other case, in accordance with the details submitted with the application.”

and condition A.2(2) of Class A of Part 16 provides that:

“Class A development is permitted subject to the condition that–

Page 172 (a) any electronic communications apparatus provided in accordance with that permission is removed from the land or building on which it is situated– (i) if such development was carried out in an emergency, at the expiry of the relevant period; or (ii) in any other case, as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for electronic communications purposes; and (b) such land or buildings is restored to its condition before the development took place, or to any other condition as may be agreed in writing between the local planning authority and the developer.

5.12 Accordingly, where submitted details are considered to be adequate or satisfactory, it is not necessary for a local planning authority to require the prior approval of the siting and/or appearance of the development in order to establish control over these matters, nor is it normally necessary to impose conditions relating to the removal of surplus apparatus and/or radio equipment housing or subsequent restoration of the site.

5.13 In the determination of an application under Part 16 of the GPDO, account must be taken of any representations made about the application. It may also be appropriate to have regard to the development plan and other material considerations.

5.14 Further information about the application site context and the proposed development are set out in sections 6 and 7 of this report and further details of the regulatory and policy framework within which the application falls to be determined are set out in section 8. Consultee responses are then summarised in section 9 and other representations made about the application are summarised in section 10. The main issues in the determination of the application and other matters raised in the representations received are addressed in the appraisal presented in section 11.

6. The Application Site and Surrounding Area

6.1 The application relates to land to the north of the Manor Roundabout road junction which connects the A354 (the Weymouth Relief Road) and the B3159 (Dorchester Road).

6.2 Two monopole telecommunications masts are currently present in this location, one being approximately 12 metres tall and the other being approximately 15 metres tall.

6.3 The masts are positioned within a relatively wide area of highway verge, the Manor Roundabout and the A354 being to the south and a residential street off Dorchester Road (Greenway Road) to the north.

6.4 The highway verge rises to the north and is backed by a belt of mature trees, beyond which is public bridleway (Route S1/30) which serves as part of the National Cycleway (Route 26), links to Littlemoor and provides access to the Lorton Meadows Nature Reserve.

6.5 Greenway Road is a residential street, the nearest houses being approximately 30 metres from the application area.

Page 173 6.6 South of the roundabout is the Morrisons supermarket, opposite which are further residential properties. Around the roundabout and along the connecting roads and public bridleway are other vertically engineered structures including lighting columns and highway signage.

6.7 The application area lies with the development boundary for Weymouth as defined in the Adopted Local Plan where in Policy SUS2 provides that residential, employment and other development to meet the needs of the local area will normally be permitted. The area is regarded as being at low risk of fluvial and surface water flooding.

6.8 No part of the application site or any immediately adjoining areas are designated for their nature conservation importance and there are no designated heritage assets within or in the immediate vicinity of the application site.

6.9 The nearest designated heritage asset is the Radipole Conservation Area, the nearest boundary of which is located approximately 200 metres from the application area, the nearest listed buildings being more than 500 metres from the application area.

6.10 The Radipole Community Woodland Local Nature Reserve is located approximately 220 metres to the south west of the application area and the Lorton Site of Special Scientific Intertest (SSSI) approximately 250 metres to the north east.

6.11 The main entrance to Radipole Primary School is located approximately 250 metres to the east of the application area and the Redlands Community Sports Hub approximately 500 metres to the north. The Wey Valley School, Wyvern Academy and St Nicholas and St Laurence Primary School are located further to the north.

7. Proposed Development

7.1 The proposal provides for the upgrading (by replacement) of the lower of the two existing monopoles with a higher (18 metre tall) monopole mast to be positioned approximately 17 metres west of the existing mast to be replaced.

7.2 A ‘wrap around’ cabinet would be provided at the base of the mast, the additional cabinets being located to the north and west. The cabinets would be painted green and the replacement mast would be painted grey.

7.3 The new monopole is proposed to support upgraded 2G, 3G and 4G antennas and to additionally support 5G antennas. As with the existing mast to be replaced, the new monopole would be used by Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd (3) and EE. The other existing mast is used by another network operator operator and would be retained for their use.

7.4 To avoid any unnecessary break in coverage, the Supplementary Information submitted in support of the application makes clear that the existing monopole to be replaced would be retained for a period following the construction of the proposed mast but would later be removed.

7.5 Improvement of the existing signals and the introduction of 5G services means that the new mast needs to be taller than that which it is intended to replace.

Page 174 7.6 To accommodate the 5G antennas and the associated feeder cables, the monopole also needs to be slightly wider than the existing mast and, unlike the existing structure, the antennas would not be fully enclosed within a fibre glass shroud. However, the application explains that the proposed design is the slimmest possible to enable all technologies to be supported from this site and that if the column and shroud width were any slimmer another radio base station would be required.

7.7 The application further notes that:

“The design of the column is a simple, functional, vertical structure which will not appear incongruous within the streetscene, which is characterised by similar linear structures. The column will be coloured grey but can be coloured any other colour the LPA consider appropriate.

The cabinets are designed to appear like other statutory undertakers equipment cabinets, including the immediate streetscene. The proposed equipment cabinets are small for telecommunications apparatus and proposed to be coloured green to blend in with other similar statutory undertakers equipment cabinets often found in urban areas. The equipment cabinets can be installed under the operators permitted development rights, but have been included on the plans and in the description in order to remain fully transparent.”

8. Regulatory and Policy Context

8.1 Section 38(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) provides that if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 For the subject application, the development plan includes the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015.

8.3 The term material considerations is wide ranging but in this instance includes: (i) national planning policy; (ii) national planning practice guidance and also sector specific practice guidance including that provided in the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England; and (iii) other statutory provisions outlined below.

8.4 There is no adopted or post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan that is material to the determination of the subject application.

Adopted West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015

8.5 The adopted West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Adopted Local Plan) provides a basis for planning decisions in the former district of West Dorset for the period to 2031. The plan sets out a vision for West Dorset in 2031 and a number of strategic objectives which provide a concise expression of the priorities of the plan. Pertinent strategic objectives include:

Page 175  Support the local economy to provide opportunities for high quality, better paid jobs;  Support sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities;  Protect and enhance the outstanding natural and built environment, including its landscape, biodiversity and geodiversity, and the local distinctiveness of places with the area – this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are particularly sensitive to change;  Reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, both by minimising the potential impacts and adapting to those that are inevitable – this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are at highest risk;  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; and  Achieve high quality and sustainable in design, reflecting local character and distinctiveness of the area.

8.6 For each of the above themes, more detailed policies to be applied to specific issues or types of development are provided. The following policies are particularly relevant to the determination of the subject application:  COM10 – The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure;  ENV1 – Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest;  ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats;  ENV5 – Flood Risk;  Policy ENV10 – The Landscape and Townscape Setting; and  ENV16 – Amenity.

8.7 Specifically in relation to telecommunications and radio masts, paragraph 6.6.2 of the Adopted Local Plan notes that modern telecommunications are an essential and beneficial element in the life of the local community and the national economy. It is further noted that new technology has spread rapidly to meet the growing demand for better communications at work and at home. Paragraph 6.6.3 then notes that public interest and anxiety over telecommunications has made it a contentious planning issue and that operators of communication technology have a duty to abide by codes and regulations in terms of public health. It is further stated that where telecommunications development is proposed, the following information will normally be sought:  a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines;  the outcome of any consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college.

8.8 As noted above, the application includes a Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines and a site specific Supplementary Information form. Amongst other matters, the Supplementary Information form provides details of pre- application consultation letters sent to local ward councillors and the local member of parliament. No schools or other local organisations were consulted at the pre- application stage.

Page 176 8.9 Policy COM10 of the Adopted Local Plan provides that proposals for the development of telecommunications or radio equipment will be permitted provided that:  the development will not be unduly detrimental to the appearance of the locality, particularly in sensitive areas of landscape, nature conservation or townscape importance; and  the applicant has demonstrated that there is a need for the technology and that all technically feasible alternatives have been explored and that the application proposal results in the least visual harm.

8.10 The above matters are key considerations in the determination of the subject application and are considered further along with other development plan policies in the appraisal presented in section 11 of this report.

National Planning Policy and Guidance

8.11 Issued in February 2019 and subsequently modified in June 2019, the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) sets out Government planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

8.12 The NPPF is clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (paragraph 9) and that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives – economic, social and environmental - which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways, so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives (paragraph 8).

8.13 In full, the overarching objectives of the planning system are as follows:

 an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

 a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well- designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and

 an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

8.14 Paragraph 9 of the NPPF makes clear that the overarching objectives are not criteria against which every planning decision can or should be judged, noting that decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions but,

Page 177 that in doing so, should take local circumstances into account so as to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area.

8.15 So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF paragraph 10), which, for decision taking, amongst other matters and subject to exception, means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay (NPPF paragraph 11).

8.16 Decision making is further addressed in part 4 of the NPPF. Paragraph 38 of the NPPF indicates that local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way, using the full range of planning tools available and working proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. It is further stated that decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

8.17 Paragraph 54 of the NPPF provides that local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations but notes that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF provides that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. It is further stated that agreeing conditions early is beneficial to all parties involved in the process and can speed up decision making and that conditions that are required to be discharged before development commences should be avoided, unless there is a clear justification.

8.18 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF provides that planning obligations must only be sought where: (iv) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (v) directly related to the development; and (vi) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

8.19 Paragraphs 112-116 of the NPPF set out detailed and particularly pertinent policy on supporting high quality communications, paragraph 112 noting that advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being and that planning decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G) and full fibre broadband connections.

8.20 Paragraph 113 of the NPPF states that the number of radio and electronic communications masts, and the sites for such installations, should be kept to a minimum consistent with the needs of consumers, the efficient operation of the network and providing reasonable capacity for future expansion. It is further stated that use of existing masts, buildings and other structures for new electronic communications capability (including wireless) should be encouraged and that where new sites are required (such as for new 5G networks, or for connected transport and smart city applications), equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

Page 178 8.21 Paragraph 114 of the NPPF provides that local planning authorities should ensure that: a) they have evidence to demonstrate that electronic communications infrastructure is not expected to cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest; and b) they have considered the possibility of the construction of new buildings or other structures interfering with broadcast and electronic communications services.

8.22 The subject application explains that the proposed new mast has been sited and designed in order to provide 5G coverage and to support the existing mobile network. It is further explained that: (i) as the new pole will be complimentary to the existing 2G/3G/4G mast it must be immediately adjacent to the existing pole in order to replicate the existing coverage; (ii) there are no more favourable greenfield locations immediately adjacent to the site; and (iii) there are no existing suitable rooftop sites in the search area.

8.23 It is further noted that the application area is not within 3km of any aerodromes that the telecommunications infrastructure subject of the application accords with all relevant legislation and that, as such, will not cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest.

8.24 Paragraph 115 of the NPPF provides that applications for electronic communications development (including applications for prior approval under the General Permitted Development Order) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development and that this should include: a) the outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college, or within a statutory safeguarding zone surrounding an aerodrome, technical site or military explosives storage area; and b) for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self- certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection; or c) for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met.

8.25 The outcome of pre-application consultations are reported in the submitted application and confirmation has been provided that the proposed equipment and installation complies with ICNIRP guidelines and a Certificate of Compliance has been submitted in support of the application.

8.26 Paragraph 116 of the NPPF states that:

Page 179 “Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.”

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

8.27 The Government’s online Planning Practice Guidance provides some advice on prior approval processes and procedures including the following:

“Prior approval means that a developer has to seek approval from the local planning authority that specified elements of the development are acceptable before work can proceed. The matters for prior approval vary depending on the type of development and these are set out in full in the relevant Parts in Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order. A local planning authority cannot consider any other matters when determining a prior approval application." (Reference ID: 13-026-20140306)

“The statutory requirements relating to prior approval are much less prescriptive than those relating to planning applications. This is deliberate, as prior approval is a light-touch process which applies where the principle of the development has already been established. Where no specific procedure is provided in the General Permitted Development Order, local planning authorities have discretion as to what processes they put in place. It is important that a local planning authority does not impose unnecessarily onerous requirements on developers, and does not seek to replicate the planning application system.” (Reference ID: 13-028-20140306)

Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England, November 2016

8.28 First published in 2003 and updated several times since, the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England provides guidance to Mobile Network Operators, planning authorities, community groups and others with an interest in mobile connectivity.

8.29 Developed by a Working Group comprising various Government departments, industry representatives, Historic England, the Local Government Association, the Planning Officers Society and others, the principal aim of the Code is to ensure that the Government’s objective of supporting high quality communications infrastructure is met (paragraph 1.3). Through commitment expressed to and/or within the Code, the Code also plays an important role in promoting engagement with local communities and other interested parties. Amongst other matters, the Code of Best Practice:  sets out siting and appearance principles (Appendix A);  provides advice on constructive working and consultation and engagement;  provides guidance on planning application procedures; and  includes templates for providing supplementary information to accompany planning applications and for declaring conformity with International

Page 180 Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Public Exposure Guidelines (Appendix D).

EIA Regulations

8.30 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended), hereafter referred to as ‘the EIA Regulations’, apply the amended EU directive “on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment” (usually referred to as the ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Directive’) to the planning system in England.

8.31 Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process of evaluating the main likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or development and which involves the preparation of an environmental statement, its publication and consideration.

8.32 The EIA Regulations only apply to certain types of development and EIA is not always required for all such development. However, regulation 3 of the EIA Regulations provides that the relevant planning authority, the Secretary of State or an inspector must not grant planning permission or subsequent consent for EIA development unless an EIA has been carried out in respect of the development.

8.33 The subject development is not of a type mentioned in either Schedule 1 or in column 1 of the table in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations, and therefore does not constitute EIA development. Neither screening for the possible need for EIA nor the conduct of EIA pursuant to the EIA Regulations is therefore necessary.

Equalities

8.34 Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 (as amended) provides that in the exercise of its functions a public authority must have due regard to the need to: (i) eliminate discrimination, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act; (ii) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

8.35 The relevant protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

8.36 The design and management of the built environment can create and/or reinforce bias and disadvantage. However, in this instance, it is not considered that the subject development does not have any material implications pursuant to the public sector equalities duty.

Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention of Human Rights

8.37 The Human Rights Act 998 imposes an obligation on public authorities not to act incompatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, such that persons directly affected by the adverse effects of decisions of public authorities may be able to claim a breach of their human rights.

Page 181 8.38 The articles/protocols of particular relevance are: (i) Article 6 - Right to a fair and public hearing; (ii) Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life; and (iii) The First Protocol, Article 1 - Protection of Property.

8.39 These are qualified rights, which means that interference with them may be justified if deemed necessary in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

8.40 Article 1 of Protocol 1 provides that a person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and that no-one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest.

8.41 The term “possessions” may include material possessions, such as property, and also planning permissions and possibly other rights. Any interference with a Convention right must be proportionate to the intended objective. This means that such an interference should be carefully designed to meet the objective in question and not be arbitrary, unfair or overly severe.

8.42 European case law suggests that interference with the human rights described above will only be considered to engage those Articles and thereby cause a breach of human rights where that interference is significant.

8.43 I am satisfied that: (i) the application has been subject to adequate public consultation; (ii) prior to the determination of the application, the public will have had an adequate opportunity to make representations in the normal ways; and (iii) that the representations received to date are adequately addressed in this report.

8.44 I am further satisfied that the proposed development: (i) would not impact on the right to live one’s personal life without unjustified interference such that Article 8 would be engaged; and (ii) would not unreasonably deprive any person of their right to either their peaceful enjoyment of their possessions or of their possessions.

9. Consultee Response

9.1 A summary of representations received about the application from internal and external consultees is set out below.

9.2 Dorset Council Ward Members

No response received.

9.3 Weymouth Town Council

No objection.

Page 182 Application to be considered again by Town Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee on Tuesday 6th October 2020.

9.4 Dorset Council Highway Liaison Engineer

No response received.

10. Other Representations Received

10.1 The application was publicised by means of a site notice and 30 other representations have been received - 4 in support of the application and 26 objecting.

10.2 Consideration of representations received led to the realisation that not all of the application documents had been made available for public inspections online. Further representations have therefore been invited and any additional representations received will be reported at Committee.

10.3 The representations received in support of the application variously note that: (1) They are very pleased to see the 21st century coming to Weymouth. (2) Weymouth sorely needs investment. (3) 5G will bring a big step forward. (4) Content that technology is safe; (5) They would pick a 5G town over a non-5G town if booking a holiday or picking a place to work. (6) This is a good site.

10.4 The representations objecting to the application raise a range of issues relating to the siting and appearance of the proposed development and expressing concerns regarding the adequacy of the information submitted in support of the application, health and safety concerns, and environmental impact. In summary, the representations variously comment that: (1) Whilst many people welcome faster connections speeds for home and business use, there are many parents, residents and schools waking up to the potential dangers of mobile phone masts and monopoles. (2) Most people want speedy, reliable connection. It does not need 5G to achieve this. (3) Already a mast here and it is unsightly. (4) Proposed mast would be an eyesore, 6 metres higher than existing mast and could appear unsettling to some residents causing anxiety and other mental health issues. (5) Proposed mast would be an an unnatural and unsightly blight on the landscape and obscure the skyline. (6) An 18 metre pole at this location would not be camouflaged and is not sympathetic to visual amenity of residential area. (7) Proposed monopole would be visible from some distance, specifically from many residential properties in Greenway Road area of Redlands, Manor Road and along Dorchester Road. (8) Application appears flawed - several required documents are missing and plan is confusing. (9) Application documents are not available for viewing.

Page 183 (10) Lack of Health & Safety certificate and omission of technical details such as frequency, power output and exclusion zones which are required to accompany the ICNIRP certificate. (11) ICNIRP certificate is bogus as merely a self-certification, not endorsed by ICNIRP. (12) No evidence provided regarding potential for interference to instrumentation and air traffic services. (13) No information provided on how mast might interact with other masts and antennae. (14) No evaluation of health effects nor of effects of wildlife & the environment has been undertaken. There is NO research showing safety neither from 5g alone, nor 5g plus existing radiation from GSM 4g,3g Wi-Fi etc. Applicant needs to provide reports on operation and safety of 5G beam-formed transmission. Without this technical file an ICNIRP Certificate is invalid. (15) Lack of transparency about who has been consulted. (16) Decision on application should be postponed until all required information has been provided. (17) Mast would be adjacent to the bridleway to Two-Mile Copse and close to 3 schools. (18) Up to 1,000 students would pass by twice a day walking or cycling (19) Local school and residents have not been consulted. (20) Failure to consult local schools as part of the legal process means the mast will be illegally erected. (21) Nobody wants to live so close to a mast. (22) Mast would be adjacent to a wildlife conservation area. (23) Lorton Meadows Nature Reserve is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). An Environmental Impact and Risk Assessment Report is required. This should include a pollinator survey, survey of bat roosts in area and a tree survey giving scientific and/or common name of each species, age of tree, height, branch spread, root protection area and future growth potential. (24) Full Environmental Impact Assessment report missing. (25) A Bio-Initiative Report detailing the effects of pulsed, data-modulated, radiofrequency electromagnetic microwave radiation (RF-EMR) on ecology, flora and fauna needs to be provided. (26) There is a large body of peer reviewed scientific evidence that electromagnetic radiation is detrimental to wildlife especially to bees and other pollinators. Based on this fact alone the monopole should not be installed. (27) No risk assessment on environmental impact/conservation provided. (28) Council has duty of care to carry out a risk assessment. 5G has not been proved safe. (29) 5G is harmful to human, animal and plant life - a fact known to the insurance industry who refuse to underwrite any harm caused. Concerned about impact on children with epilepsy. (30) Mast has to adhere to the official guidelines of safe distance . (31) Not enough is known about health and environmental risks of this new technology, particularly biological effects on children and wildlife. (32) Transmitters will have to be installed throughout neighbourhood, expanding danger beyond just the mast on the roundabout. (33) Precautionary principle should be invoked and 5G masts refused.

Page 184 (34) NPPF is a directive, not legislation or law. (35) The Council has power to ban any erection they wish if it is deemed not in the interests of environment or public health. (36) Number of radio and electronic communications masts, and the sites for such installations, should be kept to a minimum consistent with the needs of consumers, the efficient operation of the network and providing reasonable capacity for future expansion. (37) Burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that we the 'consumers' want and need this mast in our area. (38) Councillors will be aware that an ancient Law resides over the Land giving us ALL the right to this protection and to keep our Freedom. (39) Applicant has no right to erect or even keep an existing mast near our schools and homes. (40) Applicant must prove that they have surveyed the area for use of existing masts, buildings and other structures for new electronic communications capability (including wireless). No submission is made to this effect. Impossible to properly evaluate whether the boundary fence is adequate without required technical information. (41) National Institutes of Health (NIH) conclude that the spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RD-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF Premote Oxidative stress, a condition involved in most cancer onset, in several acute & chronic diseases & in vascular homestatis. (42) The WHO IARC classified RF EMF as a possible carcinogenic to humans in 2011. (43) The International Scientists Appeal representing 248 scientists from 42 Nations have submitted an appeal requesting UNEP reassess the potential biological impacts to plants , animals & humans, with 250,000 signatures around the world. (44) Childhood (and other) cancer clusters have been found after only one year of base stations being in operation, in the widely publicized cluster in Valladolid Spain, where 10 children in the vicinity of the antennae developed different cancers within a year.

11. Case Officer’s Appraisal

11.1 Having regard to the information submitted in support of the application, the provisions of the development plan and other material considerations including national planning policy and representations received, the main issues in the determination of the application relate to: (i) the adequacy of the justification for and of the other background information provided in support of the proposed development; (ii) the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the application site and surrounding area; and (iii) whether there are any technically feasible alternatives that would meet the development need with less visual and/or environmental harm.

11.2 Being an application for determination as to whether the prior approval of the local planning authority will be required as to the siting and appearance of development that is proposed to be undertaken as permitted development the acceptability in principle of the proposed development is not a matter for consideration, but the

Page 185 justification for the proposal and the potential for meeting the development need with less environmental harm may be considered.

11.3 The application is not supported by network coverage plots but explains the purpose of the proposal indicating that consideration has been given to alternative locations for the siting of antennas including placement on other structures in the locality, but that the potential for such alternatives is severely constrained by the need for the proposed development to integrate with the already established communications networks.

11.4 It is further explained that the proposed introduction of 5G services necessitates the higher siting of antennas so as to achieve vertical separation from other service antennas but also to achieve effective service coverage. Accordingly, it is understood that the introduction of a new mast solely for the purpose proving 5G coverage would not reduce the operational height requirement and would additionally lead to the further proliferation of masts in the local area contrary to national planning policy.

11.5 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF is clear that the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve and states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF provides that that planning decisions should ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character; and create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

11.6 Policy ENV1 of the adopted Local Plan provides that development should be located and designed so that it does not detract from and, where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character. The policy further states that development that significantly adversely affects the character or visual quality of the local landscape will not be permitted and that appropriate measures will be required to moderate the adverse effects of development on the landscape.

11.7 Policy ENV10 of the Adopted Local Plan provides that all development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness and that development should be informed by the character of the site and its surroundings. The policy further provides that development will provide for the future retention and protection of trees and other features that contribute to an area’s distinctive character and that development should only be permitted where it provides sufficient hard and soft landscaping to successfully integrate with the character of the site and its surrounding area.

11.8 Policy ENV16 of the Adopted Local Plan provides that proposals for development should be designed to minimize their impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of residents close to it. As such, amongst other matters, the policy further states that development proposals will only be permitted provided they do not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties through loss of privacy or on the amenity of the occupiers of properties through inadequate

Page 186 daylight or excessive overshadowing, overbearing impact or flicker; they do not generate a level of activity or noise that will detract significantly from the character and amenity of the area or the quiet enjoyment of residential properties; and they do not generate unacceptable pollution, vibration or detrimental emissions unless it can be demonstrated that the effects on amenity and living conditions, health and the natural environment can be mitigated to the appropriate standard.

11.9 Being both taller and wider than the existing monopoles, the proposed 18 metre mast would be more apparent than the existing telecommunications infrastructure in this location, but monopole designs are regularly used in sensitive landscape areas and tend to assimilate well with other vertically engineered structures and within locations that benefit from vegetation screening, both being present in the vicinity of the application area. Monopole masts are already present in the immediate vicinity of the application area and have previously been considered to be both appropriate and acceptable in the local landscape setting.

11.10 At 18 metres tall, the proposed mast would be several metres higher than the adjacent trees, but the trees would help to filter or screen local views from the north and east and also help assimilate the mast into the more open public views from the south and west. When visible against the sky in the UK, grey painted masts are generally considered to be less noticeable than darker painted structures.

11.11 Additional landscaping could potentially help to further assimilate the proposed mast into its setting but it is not considered that the development as proposed would be unduly detrimental to either the character, the appearance or the amenities of the locality.

11.12 Having regard to the information presented in support of the application, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated a need for the proposed technology and that all technically feasible alternatives have been adequately explored and that the application proposal may be regarded as the option resulting in least visual and environmental harm. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposal is in accordance with policy COM10 of the Adopted Local Plan.

11.13 Confirmation has been provided that the proposed equipment and installation would comply with ICNIRP guidelines and that the subject equipment accords with all relevant legislation such that it will not cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest.

11.14 Overall, I am therefore satisfied that adequate information has been provided in accordance with both the development plan and national planning policy to justify the proposed development, its siting and its appearance.

11.15 It is recognised that the introduction of 5G technologies is a controversial topic with many campaigners arguing that the technology is unproven and potentially hazardous. However, Government planning policy is clear that local planning authorities must determine applications for communications development on planning grounds only and that they should not set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.

Page 187 11.16 The matters on which a local planning authority may seek to regulate development under Class A of Part 16 of the GPDO are further prescribed by the legislation to the approval of the siting and appearance of such development. In this regard, it is not apparent that alternative means of meeting the development need would have either less visual or environmental harm.

11.17 Respondents to the application have advocated the application of the precautionary principle under which decision-makers may adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about environmental or human health hazards is uncertain and the stakes are high.

11.18 However, environmental and health considerations relating to this type of development have been considered by the Government in developing permitted development rights.

11.19 Conditions imposed by the GPDO provide that: (i) the development must be carried out in accordance with the submitted details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority; (ii) require the removal of apparatus which is no longer required for electronic communications purposes; and (iii) make provisions for site restoration.

11.20 On this basis, I am satisfied that the siting and appearance of the proposed development are in accordance national and local planning policy and am further satisfied that Dorset Council’s prior approval as the local planning authority as to the siting and appearance of proposed development is not necessary and need not be required.

Page 188 Agenda Item 8

Western and Southern area 8th October 2020 Planning Committee Appeal Decisions

1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of Report: To inform Members of notified appeals and appeal decisions and to take them into account as a material consideration in the Planning Committee’s future decisions.

Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that: This report is for Information

Wards: Those covered by the area planning committee

3.0 APPEAL DECISIONS

Appeal Reference: APP/D1265/W/20/3251442 Planning Reference: WP/19/00501/FUL

Proposal: Conversion/alterations of shop and building back to 2 dwellings and erection of 3 houses to the rear

Address: 73-75 Portland Road, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 9BE

3.1 The planning application was considered by the Western and Southern Area Planning Committee in February 2020. The case officer for the application recommended to the committee that the application be approved. The committee decision was to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development of a total of 5 dwellings would have an unduly cramped form of development with small external amenity areas for future occupiers and would result in an overdevelopment of the site. As such it would be contrary to Policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan, and contrary to good design as is set out in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular para 127 which encourages a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

3.2 The applicant subsequently appealed the refusal of planning permission and the Council in September 2020 received the appeal decision. The appeal was allowed and planning permission was granted for the development.

Page 189

3.3 The Planning Inspector in his decision accepted that the dwellings would have notably smaller garden spaces than those associated with most other nearby dwellings but went on to state:

“Nevertheless, the garden spaces would provide sufficient space for sitting outside and there is a large amount of public open space in close proximity to the site that could supplement the on-site provision for children’s play and the like. While the houses could accommodate families, the proposed garden provision would be adequate in response to this context.”

3.4 The Inspector considered that the proposal with the aims of Policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the local plan which require development to be informed by its context, the character of the site and its surroundings.

3.5 Officers in the appeal statement referred to Policy ENV16 of the local plan and the requirement for development to be designed to minimise the impact on the amenity of future residents. The Inspector also highlighted that Para 127 (f) of the NPPF also required a high standard of amenity for future users and that given the adequacy of garden space proposed the Inspector considered these aims were met.

3.6 The Inspector concluded that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the site and accordingly it would not be cramped or represent an inappropriate amount of development on the site.

3.7 The applicant as part of the appeal process also made a costs application to the Planning Inspetcorate. The costs appeal was also allowed and the Planning Inspectorate considered a full award of costs was justified. The planning Inspector in the costs decision stated

“The Council’s reason for refusal indicated that the proposed garden would be small. The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting explain that these gardens would be smaller than others nearby leading to a significantly different living experience in the proposed homes. However, there is no subsequent substantive explanation as to why this different living experience would be harmful.

Moreover, whilst suggesting that the gardens would not reflect the type of housing proposed, the Council’s appeal statement provides no substantive evidence to the site of garden space that should be provided, or why those proposed are inadequate. Nor is there any detailed rebuttal of the appellant’s arguments surrounding the site’s context, including the proximity of public open space.

I, therefore, find the Council’s reason for refusal is based upon vague and generalised assertions of harm. In accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance such is unreasonable behaviour. In the absence of demonstrable harm, specific consideration of this site’s context could have resulted in the appeal being avoided and, therefore, wasted expense in the appeal process as resulted.”

Page 190