APPLICATION NO: WP/17/00271/OUT 7th June 2017

Outline application for phased development of up to 340no. dwellings with primary access from Nottington Lane & secondary access from Dorchester Road including ancillary off-site highways works, on-site open space & drainage works

FIELD SOUTH OF NOTTINGTON LANE, NOTTINGTON LANE, WEYMOUTH

CG Fry & Son Ltd

Case Officer: David Hodges FOR DECISION

1. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

1.1. Delegate authority to the Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control) for the issue of a conditional outline approval following an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure:

 35% affordable housing;  An area of public open space of not less than 5ha;  1,000 sqm of defined/equipped natural area for play and four smaller defined (non-equipped) play spaces totalling 1,600 sqm.

2. PROPOSAL

2.1. The applicant is seeking outline planning consent (with all matters of detail, except for access, reserved) for up to 340 dwellings, together with an area of open space. The development would have two access points off Nottington Lane, as well as an access off Dorchester Road.

2.2. Site Appraisal

The site as a whole comprises 16.25 ha of agricultural land, which sits between Nottington village and the north western fringe of the built form of Weymouth, known as Broadwey. The application site relates to four connecting parcels of land, located to the rear of properties running along Dorchester Road, and along the southern edge of Nottington Lane. Nottington Court sits directly to the north west of the site. The site is designated in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan as an allocated site for development, and sits within the defined development boundary.

2.3. The site also falls within the South Dorset Ridge and Vale landscape character area and is designated an area of Land of Local Landscape Importance. The area as a whole is characterised by its undulating landscape, but with the site itself falling within the lower vale and forming a sheltered pocket of land. In the immediate vicinity, the character of the area becomes influenced by the urban fringe of Broadwey, with the eastern part of the site comprising open agricultural land which is somewhat shaped by the suburban development to the north and east. Nottington Lane itself retains to some extent a rural feel by virtue of its narrow width and hedged boundaries, although this is compromised by the extensive traffic calming which has been put in place along its eastern section. The western part of the site exhibits a slightly different character and becomes dominated by small clusters of broadleaved trees, which adds texture and diversity to the landscape. This western part of the site is contained within a small ‘bowl’ of lower lying land, which historically formed the parkland setting of Nottington House, which was demolished in the 1960’s. This part of the site has an enclosed character, owing to the belt of trees that surround this portion of land.

2.4. The site is within a sensitive location, with a portion of the western part of site situated within the Nottington Conservation Area. A large number of the trees are protected by Tree Preservation Orders and there are a number of listed buildings to the north and west, off Nottington Lane. A footpath runs along the western boundary of the site, connecting with Nottington Lane to the north and Dorchester Road to the South.

2.5. The land is used for both arable and pastoral farming, and also used for hay and silage. Due to the soil wetness, it is not the best and most versatile agricultural land, falling within agricultural land classification 3b, being of moderate quality. Running parallel to the northern boundary of the site, within the adjacent agricultural field, is the River Wey. The land slopes down in a north western direction and is an area of known surface water flooding.

2.6. Within Broadwey are a number of facilities including Wey Valley School and Sports College, Wyverne School, and St. Nicholas and St. Laurence C.E. Primary School, together with Redlands Sports Hub and Upwey Railway Station.

2.7. Proposed development

Part 3 of the of the Development Management Procedure Order (2015) states that an application for outline planning permission does not need to give details of any reserved matters, except for the area, or areas, where access points to the development proposed would be situated. Subsequently, very little information is before the Council in respect of scale, layout, appearance and landscaping. In this case, the agent is seeking approval of the access to the site, and full details of the accesses have been submitted.

2.8. That said, in order to demonstrate how the development could be provided on site, an illustrative masterplan has been submitted. Having regard to the proposal, the following details have been provided:

2.9. Use and amount of development

 This proposal is for residential development, comprising up to 340 houses (35% of which are to be affordable housing), together with an area of open space. The proposal as shown indicates an area of 5.36 ha or open space/landscape area, together with a pond.

2.10. Access

 The proposed housing would be served by a network of linking roads, which would connect with Nottington Lane at two separate points, with a further access proposed off Dorchester Road. The development would also incorporate a network of trails for walking and cycling, providing access across the parkland space and a dedicated route running parallel to Nottington Lane, providing connectivity between Broadwey and Nottington village.

2.11. Layout, scale and appearance

 An illustrative masterplan has been provided indicating a proposed layout of the scheme. As the application is in outline form, the layout shown is only provided for indicative purposes. It is nevertheless a helpful indicator as to how the scheme may work on site. The layout of the development has been amended during the course of the application to respond to issues raised. The indicative layout shows a network of roads with dwellings fronting the routes and spaces. A large portion of the housing would be provided in the eastern part of the site, adjacent to the existing built form of Broadwey, with a second cluster of dwellings provided within the lower western portion of the site. A large area of parkland and trees would sit between these two blocks of units, with a single road linking the two, and access provided to both blocks from Nottington Lane.

 The proposed scheme seeks to respond to the historic and natural environment and this has influenced the layout of the development. A central public parkland is shown at the heart of the development, which seeks to retain the historic shelterbelt of trees, and seeks to respond to the historic Manor House setting, that once existed prior to the demolition of Nottington House. A feature building is proposed to be positioned within the south western part of the site, which would seek to address the parkland setting and sit at the end of a tree lined avenue.

 Beyond the proposed illustrative layout, no clear details of scale and appearance have been provided at this outline stage. However, the supporting information indicates that a variety of house types and sizes would be provided, including apartments, terraces housing, semi- detached houses and larger detached dwellings, with a variety of tenure types. The supporting information indicates that larger villas would address the park, and lower scale cottages would overlook the woodland edges. A pair of ‘lodge’ dwellings and terrace cottages would frame the west and east entrances from Nottington Lane respectively, and it is intended that the village character would be reinforced by the landscaped arrival over the pond and the development presenting a lower scale with rooms in the roof.

2.12. Landscaping

 Some details of landscaping have been provided on the illustrative masterplan. As indicated above, a large area of parkland is to be provided within the heart of the development, and the protected copse of trees is shown to be retained. Street trees would also be provided within the development, and with the exception of the retention of the historic stone wall to the west of the site, most of the boundaries between the site and wider countryside would be delineated with hedgerows.

2.13. Notwithstanding the above details, this is an outline application with all matters - apart from points of access to the existing highway network - reserved for later approval. Approval of this application would grant permission for the principle of the development of the site for residential purposes whilst also granting the access details.

2.14. The application is essentially the same as the previous application for the development of the site (WP/15/00072/OUT), which was recommended for approval by officers and refused by the Planning Committee.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1. This application follows the refusal of a previous outline application for the development of the site (App. No. WP/15/00072/OUT) by the Planning Committee on 12 July 2016.

3.2. This application was refused for the following reasons;

1. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not, by virtue of the resultant increased volume of traffic using Nottington Lane by reason of the two accesses proposed, have a significant detrimental impact on highway safety. As such, the proposed development fails to comply with policy COM7 and WEY12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted 2015).

2. The proposed development has the potential to result in additional surface water run-off, which would perpetuate and potentially worsen the existing flood risk within the area. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the additional surface water run off could be effectively managed and mitigated, such that the proposed development fails to comply with policy ENV5 and WEY12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted 2015).

3.3. The applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal in December 2016 and a public inquiry is due to be held to consider the appeal starting on 18 July 2017.

3.4. Following the lodging of the appeal, the Council instructed external consultants to provide advice on the prospects of defending the appeal. This was done because the reasons for refusal on highways and drainage/flood risk grounds were contrary to the advice of the relevant statutory consultees – namely the Highways Authority, the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authority & the Council’s Technical Services department – for these matters. These statutory consultees had not objected to the proposals.

3.5. The advice of these independent experts was that the Council did not have grounds to continue with these reasons for refusal at the inquiry in light of the information submitted and the responses of the statutory consultees. This was reported to the Planning Committee at the meeting on 8 February and at this meeting members resolved not to seek to defend the reasons for refusal at the appeal inquiry. This has been communicated to the Planning Inspectorate.

3.6. The Council has since submitted its Statement of Case to the inquiry confirming its intention not to defend the reasons for refusal on the decision notice. The Council is also in the process of agreeing a Statement of Common Ground with the appellant as part of the inquiry process which will confirm its position in this respect. A Statement of Common Ground is a necessary part of the Appeal process and is not intended to prejudge a decision but is a requirement to avoid unnecessary discussion at an Inquiry about matters which are agreed between parties.

3.7. Part of the site has been used as a temporary camping and caravanning site, by the Caravan and Camping Club. This has been carried out under permitted development rights as set out in Part 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, and comprises a parcel of land immediately adjacent to Nottington Lane.

3.8. There is a small corner of the field, positioned directly off Nottington Lane and positioned to the rear of properties along Dorchester Road, which sits outside of the application site. A separate application (App. No. WP/15/725/FUL) for the erection 10 dwellings on this site has been approved by committee in July 2016.

3.9. A further proposal (application WP/15/0016/OUT) for 30 dwellings and a community hall, proposed to be sited to the north west of the site, off Nottington Lane was withdrawn in July 2016.

4. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

4.1. West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).

This site falls within the development boundary identified in the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015.

As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant;

 WEY12 – Land at Wey Valley  INT1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development  SUS1 - The Level of Economic and Housing Growth  SUS2 - Distribution of Development  ENV1 - Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest  ENV2 - Wildlife and Habitats  ENV3 – Green Infrastructure Network  ENV4 – Heritage Assets  ENV5- Flood Risk  ENV9 – Pollution and contaminated land  ENV10 - The landscape and townscape setting  ENV11 – The pattern of streets and spaces  ENV 12 – The design and positioning of buildings  ENV13 – Achieving high levels of environmental performance  ENV 15 – Efficient and appropriate use of land  ENV 16 – Amenity  HOUS1 – Affordable Housing  HOUS 3 – Open marking housing mix  COM1 - Making Sure New Development Makes Suitable Provision For Community Infrastructure  COM4 – New or Improved Local Recreational Facilities  COM7 - Creating A Safe And Efficient Transport Network  COM 9 – Parking standards in new development  COM 10 - The provision of utilities service infrastructure

4.2. Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance 3 Urban Design

4.3. Weymouth and Portland Landscape Character Assessment 2013

Site is within the South Dorset Ridge and Vale LCA

4.4. West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Proposals Map Background Documents

 Important Open Gaps  Conservation Area Appraisals

4.5. National Planning Policy Framework

The following sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application:

- Section 4 – Promoting Sustainable transport - Section 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7 – Requiring good Design - Section 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding - Section 8 – Promoting healthy communities - Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the Natural Environment - Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment

4.6. Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF require that:

186. Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground.

187. Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

4.7. The NPPF indicates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In terms of decision-taking this means:

 approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

 where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless:

o 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;

o or where specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

4.8. Among the core planning principles established by the NPPF (paragraph 17) we are told that planning should:  proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs.

 always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

 encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;

 promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production); and

 actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable;

4.9. This proposal impacts primarily on housing, design, and neighbour amenity issues and therefore the following is of particular relevance:

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

Para 50.- To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should:

 plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes);

 identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; and

 where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.

Para 56 - The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Para 57 - It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Para 60 –Planning Policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is however proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

5. STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS

5.1. Local Highway Authority

5.2. The Highway Authority is satisfied that adequate access can be achieved to serve this development and therefore raises NO OBJECTIONS and recommends the following contribution and conditions be attached to any consent granted [Conditions 19 – 23 below].

5.3. Natural England

5.4. Natural England has no objection. Our comments set out in our previous response to application number WP/15/00072/OUT dated 31 March 2015 remain pertinent to the current application. Natural England accepts the findings of the submitted ecological appraisals and welcomes the measures outlined for avoiding adverse impacts. We also welcome the measures outlined in the Design and Access Statement for enhancing the biodiversity interests on the site and the development of high quality natural play areas.

5.5. In order to help secure the biodiversity mitigation measures outlined in the submitted application Natural England recommend that any permission is subject to the preparation and implementation of a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan, to incorporate the following:

 Measures for providing long term protection for the site’s veteran trees.  Details of the wildlife enhancement measures for the proposed pond and wild flower meadow areas.  Native tree and orchard planting. We would recommend that tree planting scheme for the development includes the use of disease resistant elms.  The provision of a specified number of tree mounted bat, dormouse and suitable bird boxes. If practical a barn own box should be installed in a suitable location on the edge of the development.  Provision of a specified number of bat roosting bricks and access for bats into the lofts of new builds located on the edge of the development.

5.6. Historic England

5.7. “Historic England did not oppose the principle of development on the site, although I am aware that application was refused. However, as there appears to be little difference between those proposals and the current application, it seems appropriate to reiterate our previous advice.

5.8. The heritage significance of the site relates to the evidential, historic and aesthetic values associated with the surrounding Nottington Conservation Area, the character of which is partially derived from its tranquillity. The site includes two horns of shelter-belts that formerly defined the core of the designed parkland landscape centred upon the long-demolished Nottington House. This core remains a strong landscape feature, albeit an undesignated heritage asset. 5.9. We previously confirmed that Historic England does not oppose the principle of residential development on the site as a whole, provided that it satisfies the aspirations expressed in the adopted Local Plan. However, concerns were raised regarding the design of an earlier iterations of the proposal and the impact that the density would have on the tranquillity and strongly rural character of the Nottington Conservation Area.

5.10. The current plans seek to address our concerns by considering the proposals as an integrated piece of town-planning, taking on board our previous comments advocating the creation of a design layout inspired by the idea of a model village, creating a tree lined avenue, and a public square. We remain of the view that the density of the site will continue to have a negative impact on the tranquil character and appearance of the area, but that level of harm has been reduced by the proposed layout and variation in unit sizes and styles.

5.11. We remain of the view that the scheme could be further improved by pulling back the southern boundary of the built form within the historic landscape area to retain open views, and a more coherent connection between the ‘manor house’ style apartment block and the central public parkland to the east.

5.12. In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.”

5.13. Environment Agency

5.14. “We have reviewed the FRA submitted in support of the earlier planning application (WP/15/00072/OUT). We have also noted the LPA case officer recommendation for this same application, which was 'approval', but at committee the decision was to 'refuse'.

5.15. We did not object as we considered the FRA was acceptable for an outline planning application, and although the LLFA were consulted only on a discretionary basis they did not object either. We recommended a surface water drainage condition. So in summary, we did not object, neither did the LLFA, and the officer recommendation was approval, but the decision by committee was refusal, and we note that the applicant has appealed the decision.

5.16. We also note that your Council has commissioned the report by Dr Rob Murdoch of RMA Environmental. We presume to see if their reason for refusal can be defended at appeal, but Dr Rob Murdoch conclusions were: "In summary, based on the findings of this review and the responses from statutory consultees, it is concluded that the reason for refusal with regard to flood risk would be difficult to uphold at appeal as the FRA as submitted is considered to comply with relevant national and local planning policy."

5.17. Hence, in respect of the earlier application it would appear that our response to the LPA was not unreasonable.

5.18. For the new application (WP/17/00271/OUT) the LLFA are taking the lead on surface water drainage in accordance with their statutory consultation role; we have no consultation role because all of site is in Flood Zone 1. We do not wish to offer any detailed comment in respect of the new planning application, but have briefly looked over the latest FRA (v4, dated 20 March 2017) submitted in support and conclude that if we were formally consulted we would offer a similar response to that provided to the LPA in respect of the earlier application - no objection, subject to surface water drainage condition.”

5.19. Lead Local Flood Authority (DCC)

5.20. “As previously identified: the site falls entirely within Flood Zone 1 (low risk / fluvial flooding) as indicated by the EA’s indicative flood modelling, but is thought to be at (theoretical) risk of surface water flooding during severe rainfall events (1:30/100/1000yr).

5.21. Relevant mapping of such (theoretical) surface water risk indicates a pronounced overland flow of surface water from the centre of the site towards the north-western corner and an existing inlet to a receiving system (Ordinary Watercourse) that historically has been associated with localised flooding incidents. Equally, there is a significant risk of fluvial flooding downstream of the site and within Nottington village, which is attributed to the Main River Wey, and wider catchment. To this end, and in compliance with the recommendations of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the proposed development must be supported by a (conceptual) strategy of surface water management that is both appropriate & deliverable, and which is substantiated by adequate site investigation.

5.22. The amended FRA/DS document (v5) corrects the inaccuracies and errors itemised within our previous consultation response, and identified on / at pages 14 & 27 and Figures 16, 18 & 19. DCC are correctly listed as the relevant planning consultee for surface water management, whilst the works recently undertaken further west along Nottington Lane, to rebuild a highway retaining wall, are correctly identified as a Highways improvement scheme, and not an EA flood defence scheme as previously stated.

5.23. The FRA/DS Addendum document (v1) extends understanding of the receiving system in terms capacity, condition and future responsibilities. It identifies and estimates all flows that are dependent upon the (critical) culvert structure which passes beneath Nottington Lane to the receiving open channel, and gives a commitment in terms of subsequent improvements, both in terms of maintenance and improved conveyance. To this end we confirm that the issues raised within our previous response have been adequately addressed.

5.24. The revised FRA/DS document (v5) is an amended and extended version of the document previously submitted and reviewed by both the EA and ourselves (DCC FRM), in respect of an earlier application (WPBC ref: WP/15/00072/OUT). Whilst the (indicative) layout and masterplan has been altered from that previously considered and shown within earlier versions of the supporting FRA/DS document, the conceptual strategy of surface water management is essentially unchanged. We therefore highlight that the applicant’s commitment to a discharge rate equivalent to a 1 in 1 year green field rate for all occasions up to the 1 in 100 year event (with additional 40% storage – climate change) and equally to incorporate attenuation ponds designed to accommodate the 1 in 100 + 40% volume (FRA/DS v5 - p26 &27), offers a considerable betterment over the existing situation, and goes beyond the formal obligation to match greenfield discharge rates, as these increase. Subject to the detailed design that will need to be presented and approved to satisfy the requested planning condition/s, the conceptual scheme presented has the potential to offer significant improvement to the localised flooding understood to affect Nottington Lane, and some reduction in peak flows received by the Main River system.

5.25. We reiterate from our previous response that the information supplied offers an understanding of the site characteristics, prevailing flooding issues, and constraints that would influence relevant surface water management. We accept that on the basis of the site investigation works undertaken that the use of existing topography & gradients, above ground attenuation and regulated discharge to an existing receiving system (watercourse), is the most viable and sustainable strategy for the proposed development. Given the sensitivity of these proposals and concerns regarding prevailing flood risk in proximity to the site, we have obligated the applicant to undertake further investigation and to clarify the scope of information to be subsequently supplied. As such we confirm that the Outline proposals comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), relevant technical guidance and best practice.

5.26. The conceptual strategy of surface water management set out within the supporting FRA/DS (v5) document, and further consideration offered within the supporting Addendum (v1) document, are deemed to comply with, and exceed, the recommendations of the NPPF and best practice. On the basis of the additional information & clarification supplied, and listed above, DCC FRM withdraw our previous (Holding) Objection, subject to the attachment of the following pre-commencement conditions [in Section 10 below] and informative to any decision granted”.

5.27. Wessex Water - Water Supply and Waste Connections

5.28. “Please refer to our comments made below on WP/15/00072/OUT. We note that the FRA has been updated with the revisions incorporating new layout plan, details of climate change allowances and updates on Nottington Lane Drainage. These changes do not impact on our previous response which remains valid.”

5.29. “The applicant has indicated surface water will be attenuated on site and discharged via existing apparatus to the River Wey to the north of the site. This strategy appears acceptable in principle although Wessex Water are currently considering the provenance of the pipework located by the drainage consultant.

5.30. The applicant has instructed Wessex Water to consider foul drainage arrangements and the impact of predicted foul flows from the proposed development upon the downstream sewer network. Further network modelling will be required to confirm the nature and extent of recommended capacity improvements to lessen the risk of downstream flooding and pollution. As arrangements have yet to be agreed please consider the use of a planning condition, [Condition 25 below] should the application receive approval”.

5.31. “The local water supply network has limited available capacity within the area to serve additional development, we are currently appraising proposals to see if any off site reinforcement of the water network will be required to support the additional development. The cost for off site reinforcement can be accommodated within requisition arrangements under Section 41 of the Water Industry Act 1991.”

6. OTHER CONSULTATIONS 6.1. Landscape Officer

6.2. “The Site forms one of the proposed strategic housing allocations in the W.Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (WEY 12 Land at Wey Valley) and the impacts of the development on the local landscape designations (Important Open Gap and LLLI) has been previously evaluated as part of the Local Plan process. Subsequent to [the previous landscape officer’s] observations the associated Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Masterplan have been updated. The latest Masterplan provides an additional access point off Nottington Lane into the Site.

6.3. The Landscape and Visual Appraisal (Jan 2015) states in Section 1.6.6 that “the conversion of the landscape into an extension of the town changes the nature of the site from green field land to become part of the built up area. At the same time the nature of the scheme as an area of distinctive townscape with a positive landscape framework equates to a neutral effect on landscape character”

6.4. I would disagree that this equates to a ‘neutral effect’ on the landscape. The proposed development of up to 340 units on the Site is not considered to be an over development with regards the landscape or visual impact owing to the provision of public open spaces and the retention of the existing shelterbelt/parkland planting. The Development will be largely ‘contained’ by the established peripheral woodland planting/hedgerows and, as such, the landscape and visual impacts resulting from the proposed Development are not considered to adversely affect the designations.

6.5. The revised outline Illustrative Masterplan layout appears to be well considered with positive links to public open space and the wider rights of way network. The provision of key street trees within the developed area will assist in assimilating the built form into the wider landscape. The Masterplan, subject to detailed design and the adherence to design principles (set out in the Design and Access Statement) could lead to an attractive development that is respectful of the setting (a rural landscape that interfaces with suburban development).

6.6. With regards future reserved matters/conditions I would like to make the following observations:

 That the principles governing the illustrative masterplan layout (as set out in the D&A statement are followed through.  The existing hedge boundary within the southern sector of the Site is poor in terms of its structure – so additional tree planting along the boundary will be required in order to effectively filter views and break up the built form.

6.7. That the following information is provided;

 Construction management details (site accommodation/soil stockpile locations etc.  Project Phasing  Tree and Hedge Protection measures  Detailed hard and soft landscaping  Proposals for habitat management (short term and long term)” 6.8. Urban Design Officer

6.9. “The outline illustrative masterplan layout is very well thought out and demonstrates how, subject to detailed design, a high quality, attractive piece of townscape with it’s own sense of place can be achieved. The principles governing the illustrative masterplan layout are set out in the D & A statement and it’s important that these are followed through in future reserved matters applications. Therefore a condition should be applied requiring reserved matters to be in accordance with the design and layout principles set out in the D & A statement.

6.10. There are no details on phasing of the development or management and maintenance of landscape and open space and so these matters should be addressed by further conditions.”

6.11. Design and Conservation Officer

“As the proposals follow a previous scheme and have not been amended, the comments provided under Application Reference: WP/15/00072/OUT still stand.”

6.12. Previous comments:

6.13. The affect of the development on the Historic Environment is one of visual impact. The development is outside but adjacent to Nottington Conservation Area but is over a non designated designed landscape. The Listed Building the development affect are;

 The Malt house and Malthouse cottage  Aprils cottage  Deutzia cottage  Spa house  Railings to east and south east of spa house  Greystones with wall and gateway  Riverview cottage  Stayer cottage

6.14. The Conservation Area occupies a secluded situation in undulating countryside, which contrasts with the open development of modern Weymouth close by and the former designed landscape behind the ribbon development of Dorchester Road. The rural nature of the Conservation Arear is further reinforced by the field pattern which remains small in scale. The older buildings in the hamlet are predominantly rural in character and use, contrasting with the unique presence of a spa pump house in the countryside. The site that the application proposes to build on forms an important part of the open countryside to the south east of the Conservation Area. The Conservation Area provides the setting for the Listed Buildings and is an integral part of the views in and out of the site. The Conservation Area boundary follows natural features in the landscape and focuses on land that is shown on the 1841 tithe map as agricultural and associated with Nottington farm. The drawing of the Conservation Area boundary focuses attention on to the open nature of the Conservation Area from which the Conservation Arear derives part of its significance. The development site was a former park associated with Nottington Court and provides a different type of open countryside to that of the Conservation Area but nevertheless is part of the vista from the Conservation Area.

6.15. There is no physical detriment to the Listed Buildings or the Conservation Area, the impact is visual. The development area is a designated housing allocation site and therefore the development cannot be resisted but the amelioration exercise is for the development‘s design to be high quality. To this end, discussions with the applicant and their agents have moved forward to a point where the latest set of plans overcome the concerns over, mass design and layout.

6.16. Tree Officer

6.17. Comments on previous scheme-

“The tree grading is fair and reflects the fact that many of the trees on site are protected by tree preservation order and, in addition, the report acknowledges their importance in creating a mature setting for development. Overall, the masterplan layout appears acceptable in broad terms: the key trees and areas of trees are retained to provide a framework for development and there appears to be adequate separation between construction and the edge of tree canopies for it to be acceptable in arboricultural terms.

6.18. Clearly, if the development were to progress to a detailed design we would require further working-up of the arboricultural matters, but I’m happy to support the scheme at this stage.”

6.19. Sport England

Sport England object to the planning application. Full details of their comments can be found on the website www.dorsetforyou.com. The following key points have however been abstracted from their comments:

6.20. “The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by a robust evidence base such as an up to date Sports Facilities Strategy, Playing Pitch Strategy or other relevant needs assessment.

6.21. “Sport England considers that further information needs to be provided in relation to the approach to meeting the sport and recreation needs of the new development. Sport England notes that reference is made to the nearby Redlands Community Sports Hub. However, it is unclear whether improvements are being proposed to this facility. It should also be noted that consideration needs to be given to indoor sports facilities, as indicated by the SFC above, as well as outdoor facilities.”

6.22. “This being the case, Sport England wishes to object to this application, and would wish to work with the applicant/local authority to better understand the approach to securing the appropriate level and location of the sport and recreation provision to make this acceptable in planning terms.” 6.23. County Archaeologist

Comments on previous scheme:

6.24. The archaeological evaluation has found a scatter of archaeological features that do not appear to be of great significance. It seems to me that this evaluation constitutes a sufficient investigation of this material, and so I advise that, if consent is granted, there is no need for any further archaeological work.

6.25. Dorset County Council – Minerals Safeguarding

6.26. Whereas there is a small area of the proposed development site extent which lies in the Mineral Safeguarded Area (designated in the Minerals Strategy 2014), it is unlikely that this would compromise any future mineral extraction site. For this reason, the Mineral Planning Authority does not object to this proposal.

6.27. Housing Enabling Team

6.28. “Housing Need - There are currently over 1340 households on the Weymouth and Portland Housing Register. There is a high level of housing need in the Weymouth and Portland area, the greatest demand is for smaller homes.

6.29. The West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 requires a minimum of 35% affordable housing and within this provision there should be the inclusion of 70% for social/affordable rent and 30% shared ownership.

6.30. The outline application is for phased development of up to 340 dwellings and states that the affordable housing provision of 35% will be provided on site with details to be agreed at reserved matters stage and acknowledges that “The type, size and mix of housing will be expected to reflect local needs as far as possible”

6.31. There is an evident high level of housing need in the Weymouth and Portland area and the proposed development on this site which provides affordable homes on this site would help to meet this need. Full details of the comments can be read on www.dorsetforyou.com.”

6.32. Crime Prevention and Design Adviser

6.33. “My comments remain the same as per application WP/15/00072 but I would also like to make a comment in relation to car parking. Having read the Design and Access Statement, I note that car parking will be a mix of on plot, shared courtyard or on street parking.

6.34. I appreciate that this issue will be dealt with in reserved matters but would like to mention that rear car parking courtyards should be looked at carefully as they can introduce access to vulnerable rear elevations where the majority of burglaries occur, they are often unlit and therefore increase the fear of crime and can also encourage anti-social behaviour. They are also often not overlooked.

6.35. Although at this stage, a Secured by Design accreditation is not being applied for, I strongly recommend that the security of the development meets the standards laid out in the Secured by Design Guide Homes 2016. Please see www.securedbydesign.com This is a minimum standard for security but would assist with the sustainability of the development. As this is a large development, I would like to be consulted at the next stage so areas of concern can be looked at.”

6.36. Comments on previous scheme - WP/15/00072

6.37. “Having looked at the illustrative Layout Masterplan (19.5) I am pleased to see that easy access and movement (3 access roads and footpaths) and good natural surveillance (houses that front onto the open land, roads and pathways) have been taken into consideration when designing this new development. It is also good to see that the rear gardens back onto one another and there does not appear to be any rear alleyways leading to back gardens.

6.38. I do have concerns however in relation to Hardy View Square (shared road space) as I feel that this could compromise the safety of not only the road users (confusion of whose right of way it is etc.) but the residents who live within this area. I appreciate the reasoning behind it but this development is going to attract families with children who will be riding their bicycles to school and may well not understand the concept of this shared road space and I feel that on a development this size and with the number of vehicles that will be using this area to access Dorchester Road there could be quite a few road incidents making this particular area unsafe. With this area having 4 roads leading off it I believe a roundabout would be much safer.

6.39. I also have concerns in relation to a house that is corner facing on a bend in the road near the Nottington Lane entrance. I appreciate that this is outline planning and details are yet to be decided but would just like to say that I would want to see a strong defensive barrier in place on the bend to protect this house.

6.40. I would also like to see a strong defensive boundary put in place between the gardens of the current houses on Dorchester Road and the new proposed houses that will back onto them. This will help to maintain the privacy of the current residents.”

6.41. Environmental Health

6.42. Noise: If the proposal is to include any mechanical plant then a noise assessment of that plant will be required. The noise assessment must include existing background levels, the proposed noise levels due to the plant and any attenuation that is required.

6.43. Contamination: Please apply Full air quality Contaminated Land Conditions to any permission granted. Any submission relating to contamination will need to be reviewed by a suitably competent consultant.

6.44. Air Quality: The applicant needs to demonstrate the consideration of the development upon existing and future receptors with regards to air quality. It would be advisable that an air quality assessment is completed.

6.45. General: I strongly advise that the Developer produces a Method Statement. 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 Statement shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. Due to the close vicinity of existing residential dwellings to this site, the Method Statement (where appropriate) and construction works should have regard to the following to protect residents from nuisance:

 No bonfires to be held on site at any time.

Hours of demolition and construction are to be limited to; Monday – Friday 0800 – 1800 Saturday 0900 – 1300 No noisy activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. If there are to be any proposed deviations from these hours, please contact Environmental Health to discuss these.

 Start up of vehicles and machinery to be carried out in a designated area as far away from residential / sensitive areas as practicable. Start up and movement of vehicles / equipment etc. will be limited to 30 minutes prior to the hours of 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 Health 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 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.  Should piling be necessary for the construction of the future development, then the developer shall consider the impacts upon residents and it is preferred that auger piling is used, at a minimum for buildings adjacent to existing sensitive areas.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

7.1. 73 third party representations have been received objecting to the development. Full copies of third party representations are available to view on the website www.dorsetforyou.com. NB – the website suggest more responses than this have been received, however due to system glitch or user error, a number of blank or repeat responses appear on the web. 98 letters were received on the previous application.

7.2. The key concerns, which form a material planning consideration, are summarised as follows:

 Concerns regarding increased traffic and congestion on Dorchester Road, Nottington Lane and associated road safety issues, as well as noise & air pollution.

 Concerns about the displacement of wildlife and the loss of natural habitats as well as trees.

 Concerns about flooding on-site, the immediate vicinity and the River Wey. Related issues of surface water drainage and water pollution raised.

 Concerns regarding increased pressures on local public services and infrastructure including education, healthcare and the capacity of the local jobs market.

 Concerns over the privacy and amenity of existing residents due to overlooking and overbearing impact from properties and general disturbance in this regard, including from children’s play areas. Also disturbance during construction phase.

 Concerns regarding the identity of Nottington Village and the importance of this green space for the local area.

 Concerns about the effect of the development on the buildings of historical interest, and the wider Conservation Area either affecting their susceptibility to flooding or their unique isolation and attraction as well as setting.

 The development of land previously identified an as open gap

 The plans should show the adjacent development site so that the impacts to this scheme can be considered.

7.3 A number of other issues are raised in the responses which are not material considerations and accordingly are not addressed in the report below nor given any weight in the determination of the application;  loss of views;  devaluation of house prices;  new housing will only serve in-migrants, not local growth;  there is “a collusion between council and builder”;  who takes “moral blame” in the event of an accident or flooding

8. PLANNING ISSUES

8.1. The main planning issues relevant to this application are:

 The principle of development  The Council’s housing land supply  Highway safety & parking  Flood risk & surface water drainage  Landscape Impact  Heritage Impact  The impact upon neighbours’ amenity  Affordable Housing  Infrastructure and open space provision  Ecology/Wildlife  Contaminated land

8.2. Principle of Development

The area of land subject of this application is allocated within the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan, as a development site. Only a small section of the site proposed for housing would fall outside of this defined boundary and this relates to a small strip of land directly to the south west of the site, which sits directly adjacent to the allocated site. This is a result of the proposed development boundary following the field patterns on site, whereas the boundary of the allocated site takes a staggered approach along its western edge, such that it does not strictly follow the pattern of the field boundaries. A small area of the allocated site (in the north east corner) is omitted from the application due to differences in land ownership, and this site is subject to a separate permission for 10 houses.

8.3. Consequently the Council has accepted the principle that the site is acceptable for residential development. The allocation of the site through the Local Plan process is a lengthy one and subject to public consultation at a number of stages. The site was first proposed for inclusion in the Local Plan in the 2012 draft. The allocation of the site was accepted by the Local Plan Inspector as appropriate in recommending the plan be adopted. The Council agreed to the adoption of the Local Plan.

8.4. Therefore the site forms part of an adopted Local Plan. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As the scheme relates to an allocated site in the Local Plan, to resist the principle of the development of the site would be contrary to the Council’s own adopted plan.

8.5. Policy WEY12 sets out the key requirements for the site, and states the following: i) Land at Wey Valley as shown on the policies map is allocated for residential development and should include an element of employment use appropriate to a residential neighbourhood.

ii) The site should be developed in accordance with a masterplan prepared by the developer / landowner in conjunction with the local community and agreed by Weymouth & Portland Borough Council. In order to address sustainable development issues, the masterplan will need to be subject to a sustainability assessment, such as a BREEAM Communities Assessment, carried out by a suitably qualified assessor. The masterplan should ensure that:

- Development will be phased to provide steady growth over the period from 2016-2026; - Substantial landscape planting is provided to ensure that the development does not have an adverse impact on the landscape character, the character of the adjacent Conservation Area or the amenity of surrounding properties. This will need to be agreed and, where practicable, implemented in advance of the development; - Sustainable drainage methods are implemented to manage surface water flooding issues and ensure flood risk is not exacerbated elsewhere; - A network of road, footpath and cycle routes through the site and connecting to the A354 and Nottington Lane are provided to ensure that the development is well integrated into the wider route network.

8.6. Criteria (i) seeks residential development for the site, together with an element of employment use. The submitted application is however entirely residential. Criteria (i) is not therefore strictly met. In this regard, para 7.6.6 of the Local Plan sets out the intention behind the policy, to provide a number of live work units through the conversion of existing buildings, as set out below:

8.7. … Small workshops or live-work units using existing buildings or reproducing the layout of former employment uses such as old farm complexes can provide variety and links with historic uses of the site.

8.8. This objective related to an earlier version of the draft Local Plan, which indicated a larger allocated site than that shown within the now adopted Local Plan. That site was larger in size and incorporated a number of farm buildings to the south, which are no longer included within the allocation. Consequently, this part of the policy should have been revised accordingly, as there are no existing structures on site worthy of conversion. Given this clear oversight, it is not therefore considered that the absence of employment within the scheme should be a reason to resist the principle of development; given the intentions behind providing the employment as set out in criteria (i) cannot be met. It is also still feasible that a reserved matters submission could nonetheless include live/work units within the site. There is nevertheless a degree of conflict with this part of the policy.

8.9. Criteria (ii) requires that the site be developed in accordance with a masterplan, to be worked up in conjunction with the local community, taking into account and addressing the phasing of development, landscaping, drainage, and the provision of a network of routes through the site. The applicant has submitted a Statement of Community Involvement where they set out the feedback received from consultation with the community and how they have responded to key issues such as the impact on the wildlife, flooding, traffic, landscape and the impact on existing residents. These issues will be considered in more detail, later in the report.

8.10. Principle of development – Conclusion

8.11. The site is allocated for development in an adopted Local Plan. The Council will need to deliver these allocated sites in order to maintain its housing land supply (below). As the application is in outline, matters of detail would be subject to subsequent reserved matters applications, however, the masterplan does appear to respond to the various points set out in policy WEY12 such that the development is considered to be broadly in line with the requirements of policy. The principle of development is therefore considered acceptable.

8.12. Housing Land Supply

8.13. The Local Plan was adopted with a marginal housing land supply (HLS) of 5.1 years. In paragraph 103 of the Local Plan Inspector’s report he concludes (paragraph 103) that whilst “the Councils can meet their five year housing supply needs” he recognises (paragraph 106) that this “is close to the minimum required to provide choice and competition” and that “there is very little margin should circumstances change”.

8.14. This has proved to be the case as the Council’s latest monitoring exercise put the HLS at 4.9 years. Furthermore, in an appeal decision relating to a site in Yetminster (App. No. WD/D/15/002655) in January 2017 (which is within the joint Local Plan area), the Inspector examined the HLS is some detail. They considered the specifics of whether the Wey Valley site should be included in the HLS in light of the refusal of the previous application by Weymouth & Portland BC. The Council contended that notwithstanding this the WEY12 site could deliver potentially deliver 80 units within the 5-year supply. The Inspector agreed noting that; “provided outline permission were granted by mid-2017 the Council’s trajectory could be achievable and the site would contribute to the five year housing land supply.”

8.15. Overall the Inspector concluded was that the HLS on the evidence presented at the inquiry was 4.63 years. Further annual monitoring from April will confirm the current position. However, for the purposes of determining this application it must be assumed that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year HLS and its supply is 4.63 years.

8.16. Where an Authority does not have an adequate supply of housing, paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises; “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

8.17. The implications of applying Local Plan policies where an authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply have been considered through legal cases and most recently in the Supreme Court in May 2017 (Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP and v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017]. The ruling in this case is that “relevant policies for the supply of housing” in the Framework should have a narrow definition, only relating to those dealing with the numbers and distribution of housing. This reversed an earlier Court of Appeal decision which advised the definition should have a wide application to include policies dealing generally with the disposition or restriction of new development in an area.

8.18. What this means in practice is that the Council would have to regard Policy WEY12 for example as being out-of-date for the purposes of determining this application. It would also need to apply the “tilted balance” in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Members are advised that housing policies in the Local Plan are not simply disregarded as a result. However, in applying the policy, regard would have to be had to the Council’s ability to require aspects of the policy to be complied with such as the employment provision in the policy for example. For the same reasons the Council would have difficulty objecting to the number of units proposed at 340 being in excess of the 320-unit figure set out in the explanatory text in the Local Plan simply as a matter of principle. There would need to be an identifiable harm arising from the increase in numbers.

8.19. Where policies are out-of-date, the NPPF advises at paragraph 14 that Council’s should approve development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, they should grant permission unless:

“any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or––specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

8.20. The Local Plan Inspector in noting the marginal HLS in the LP advised that an early review of the Local Plan was essential to address what he regarded as deficiencies in the long-term supply of housing across the plan area. The Councils have already embarked on this process even though the adopted plan is only 18 months old with the Issues & Options document consultation having concluded in April and the Councils currently considering the responses made.

8.21. Bearing in mind the Councils are actively seeking additional sites to bolster their long-term housing supply, it is imperative that the Council supports the delivery of the sites already allocated in the current adopted Local Plan to avoid the HLS supply position worsening further and weakening the Council’s position in resisting less desirable sites.

8.22. The Issues & Options (I&O) document notes that the further expansion of Weymouth & Portland is heavily constrained, even where sites within West Dorset which functionally serve the town (Chickerell, Littlemoor) are incorporated. The I&O document notes that constraints affecting the options for the town’s continued growth includes;  The proximity to the sea  The Dorset AONB (to the north)  The Heritage Coastline  Conservation Areas  SSSIs and SACs  Coastal erosion and flood risk in Weymouth Town Centre In addition, other sites on the fringes of the town are subject to flood risk and are also designated as Sites of Nature Conservation Interest. These constraints are subject to specific guidance in the NPPF.

8.23. In such challenging circumstances, the application site – which is not affected by any of the above constraints beyond the small area within the Nottington Conservation Area – represents a preferable opportunity to contribute to the continued growth of Weymouth. This is reflected in the I&O document which also puts forward the land to the south of this site as an option for further growth (Site W3 - page 52) with potential for a further 200 units. The adopted LP also notes the site is within a sustainable location close to facilities including schools, sport and recreation facilities, shops and employment sites (paragraph 7.6.2).

8.24. Housing Land Supply – Conclusion

8.25. As an allocated site in the Local Plan, the WEY12 allocation forms part of the Council’s current 4.63 year HLS. As noted, the supply has fallen back since the adoption of the LP, therefore delivering the sites already allocated for development, along with those which are ultimately adopted through the Local Plan Review will be essential for the Councils in maintaining a 5-year supply. This is particularly so if delivery rates which have historically been below the LP target of 775 dwellings per annum continue to fall below this figure. If the Council fails to support the sites already allocated in the adopted LP, this will increase pressure for development on other sites surrounding the town which are affected by the constraints noted in paragraph 8.22. The development of those sites which are protected under national policy would potentially be considerably more damaging in their environmental impacts than the development of the application site.

8.26. Sustainable Development

8.27. The Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are underpinned by the objective to achieve sustainable development. This is outlined as 'development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'. This is based on economic, social and environmental factors needed for sustainable development (these are set out in para 7 of the NPPF). Para 18- 219 of the NPPF, are based on these principles and, taken as a whole, sets out the Government’s view of sustainable development. Para 8 of the NPPF advises that these three roles should not be taken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent; to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously.

8.28. The environmental, economic and social criteria are the basis for new housing being located within larger settlements with a range of facilities in order to provide opportunities for people to make sustainable choices. Section 4, promoting sustainable transport, notes the Governments intentions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote patterns of development which facilitate the use of sustainable modes of transport. This is reflected in the spatial strategy in Policy SUS2 in the adopted Local Plan. This identifies Weymouth as one of the highest priority locations for new development. As a site well related to the existing fringes of the town with good access to transport and other facilities in Broadwey & Redlands, the site is in a sound location for the sustainable growth of the town. 8.29. Having regard to the social dimensions of sustainable development, there would be benefit to the vitality of the local community by providing better connections between Nottington village and Broadwey, together with the provision of community open space. The site is well connected to the existing built-up area of Weymouth and new occupiers would bring additional support to the existing local services. In addition to those benefits, the development would also offer 35% affordable housing, which on the basis that a scheme comes forward for all 340 dwellings proposed, this would provide 119 new units of this type.

8.30. In respect of the economic dimensions of sustainable development, although no employment is proposed to be provided, there would be benefits to the economy during the construction phase and an increase in the economically active population living on the development. The final strand of sustainable development relates to the environmental impacts of the development. This will be considered in more detail in the report; however, the site is suitably located adjacent to the built form of Weymouth which would enable occupiers to make sustainable choices in terms of travel and has acceptable environmental impacts.

8.31. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is described in para 14 of the NPPF as the golden thread running through plan making and decision taking, and is carried forward within the adopted Local Plan. This is embodied within Policy INT1 (presumption in favour of sustainable development).

8.32. Sustainable Development - Conclusion

8.33. This proposal undoubtedly represents an opportunity to provide housing, both open market and affordable, sitting largely within an allocated site for development. Having regard to the Inspector’s report, the current lack of a 5- year housing land supply and the overall presumption in favour of sustainable development (as set out in Local Policy INT1, and the NPPF), the principle of an entirely residential led scheme is considered to be acceptable.

8.34. Drainage & Flood risk

Policy ENV5 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan seeks to ensure that new development is planned to avoid the risk of flooding. Policy WEY12 likewise seeks to ensure ‘sustainable drainage methods are implemented to manage surface water flooding issues and ensure flood risk is not exacerbated elsewhere’. The site falls outside of any high-risk flood area, falling within flood zone 1. However, the site is subject to known surface water flooding. In order to fully assess the impacts of development on flood risk, the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which is accompanied by a Geotechnical report which considers ground conditions.

8.35. The FRA identifies that properties situated downhill of the site have suffered from fluvial flooding, and these issues are echoed in the third party comments received. North of the site the land falls to the River Wey valley, which is low- lying land referred to as water meadows, containing several water channels. The northwest corner of the site, which has an existing farm access, is a potential surface water runoff point onto the public highway. Another run-off point is in the northeast corner of the site where run-off again flows across the field and onto the road through a farm gateway. Run-off tends to flow via ditches and a pond. 8.36. Problems also exist in the village from fluvial flooding, as a result of constraints on the flow within the channel as it passes under the bridge on Nottington Lane. The resultant water backs up within the meadows to the north. Excess flows eventually discharge into another channel. The Geotechnical report considers that the majority of the site is unlikely to be suitable for soakaway drainage, and that on-site attenuation combined with off-site drainage is likely to be the most suitable drainage solution. The FRA considers the options for drainage in more detail. It is proposed that the development would provide a green area to provide a setting for Nottington House, and the open spaces would include a sustainable drainage system in the form of swales and ponds to collect run-off from the impermeable areas and convey these at an attenuated rate into the existing receiving watercourse in the northwest corner.

8.37. The swales, which could also include weirs to further slow the rate of flow, would allow infiltration into the soil; and the ponds would provide further attenuation. The existing ditches would be restored and made continuous to convey the attenuated flows across the site. There would be a series of ponds and restored ditches, which would discharge into a main pond, which in extreme events would overflow into a wet area. Silt traps would be included at pipe discharge points and control devices at the outlets from each pond.

8.38. The previous application was refused on the basis that insufficient information was available to show the development would not result in additional surface water run-off, which would perpetuate and potentially worsen the existing flood risk within the area and insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the additional surface water run off could be effectively managed and mitigated. Notwithstanding that the Council resolved not to pursue this reason at the appeal, it is worth examining these concerns in light of the submitted information.

8.39. On this revised application the FRA confirms that the capacity of the surface water run-off measures will cater for a 1:100 year event plus 40% to allow for climate change. The revised FRA also confirms that run-off from the site onto Nottington Lane will be managed by re-establishing a boundary ditch which will lead to the proposed attenuation pond. In addition, the FRA states the Highways Authority have already cleared blocked gulleys along Nottington Lane which take run-off from the site.

8.40. Currently as a greenfield site the surface water flows from the site are not attenuated. In addition, the existing ditches which could manage surface water run-off are in poor condition and therefore do not perform. The overland flows follow the natural contours to a point to the north-west of the site where there is a bridge under Nottington Lane but does not discharge efficiently into a reception chamber at this point. As the information submitted shows, the issues lie not with the capacity of the system overall or its pipes but a lack of maintenance and the current agricultural uses. As a result these north & north-westerly flows may contribute to flood events on Nottington Lane.

8.41. The information in the FRA states that for the current greenfield site, a 1:100 year storm event falling on the site would result in a flow rate of 192 litres of water per second leaving the site. However, following the implementation of the proposed attenuation measures listed above, the run-off rate from the site in the same 1:100 year event would fall to 50 litres per second. Therefore the run-off rates will reduce as a result of the development by 74%, not increase as alleged in a number of representations. The drainage strategy would reduce flood risk arising from surface water flows from the developed site when compared to the existing greenfield site.

8.42. The Lead Local Flood Authority in their consultation response requested further information about the condition and capacity of the system which receives the runoff from the site, and asked if improvements are required to reduce flood risk.

8.43. In response the applicant’s drainage engineer has submitted an addendum to the FRA. The conclusions of this document are as follows;

8.44. “The system has been surveyed, inspected and photographed to inform a structured assessment. The various stages have been considered in detail, including the channel within the site. The capacity of the existing system, provided it is maintained, has been found to generous for the design 1 in 2 year storm, and judged to be adequate for the 1in 30 year storm. However, in more extreme storms the existing system is likely to ‘flood’.

8.45. Development of the site will significantly reduce the rate of runoff from the site, and will create more capacity in the system to deal with more extreme events.

8.46. The condition of the watercourse and Reception Chamber is very poor and requires high maintenance to manage the flows in the existing system; it is likely to be the source of nuisance flooding. The lack of a managed flow route from the field entrance is also likely to contribute to flooding nuisance.

8.47. The design of the on-site attenuation system, with hydraulically shaped vegetated swales, landscaped pond at the field entrance and properly formed reception chamber will transform the management of flows and reduce the risk of flooding significantly. It will also improve the reliability of the system, and improve the capacity of the existing road crossing and downstream ditches.

8.48. The receiving system will be less vulnerable to silting up, and the runoff water quality will improve significantly. The quality and character of the private ditches downstream of the site leading to the River Wey will improve. The overall consequence of the development will be a significant reduction in nuisance from flooding and an improvement in the environment and biodiversity.

8.49. The scheme will therefore deliver betterment, and complies with the guidance of Defra, the NPPF, SUDS guidance and local Policies.

8.50. Moreover this assessment has shown that the receiving system has capacity for the design flows, is unlikely to surcharge even in the 1 in 100 year event (on completion of the development) and there is no justification to improve the existing off-site chambers. The assessment therefore satisfactorily answers the question in the LLFA consultation response.

8.51. It is recommended that the Highway Authority continues to maintain the gulleys along Nottington Lane, to ensure that water enters the drainage system, where it can be safely managed as has been shown. Ownership of the existing Reception Chamber should be clarified and replaced with a modern structure if possible.” 8.52. The scheme has demonstrated therefore that it provides a considerable betterment to flood risk. The risk of flooding to Nottington Lane is considerably greater from the current greenfield site than after the proposed development and its drainage strategy have implemented.

8.53. Relevant national guidance Planning Practice Guidance for Flood Risk and Coastal Change states that “Local authorities and developers should seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area and beyond. This can be achieved, for instance, through the layout and form of development, including green infrastructure and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage systems, through safeguarding land for flood risk management, or where appropriate, through designing off-site works required to protect and support development in ways that benefit the area more generally.”

8.54. In addition, Policy ENV5 requires that “New development or the intensification of existing uses should be planned to avoid the risk of flooding (from surface water run-off, groundwater, fluvial and coastal sources) where possible. The risk of flooding will be minimised by…….ensuring development will not generate flooding through surface water run-off and/or exacerbate flooding elsewhere.”

8.55. As the scheme results in a betterment in existing surface water run-off rates, the scheme can be seen to comply with these policies. This is the test that the scheme has to pass with regards to drainage and flood risk. There are no grounds for the LPA to apply a different or stricter test than that set out in its adopted policies and national guidance. As the scheme complies with these adopted policies and guidance, it is acceptable in this regard.

8.56. Full details of the drainage strategy, including size of ponds and mechanisms can be agreed by way of condition following agreement of a final layout. The FRA has taken into account flow calculations and infiltration rates and it is considered that the proposal would bring betterment to the downstream landowners.

8.57. The DCC Flood Risk Management Team have considered the proposed drainage strategy and FRA and raise no objection subject to conditions. Furthermore they note that the drainage proposal “offers a considerable betterment over the existing situation, and goes beyond the formal obligation to match greenfield discharge rates, as these increase”. The proposed strategy to manage water on site is considered to be appropriate, and is considered to accord with policy ENV5 of the adopted Local Plan.

8.58. In terms of foul water drainage, the FRA indicates that network remodelling would be undertaken to determine the capacity of the existing sewers and this is understood to have commenced. In conjunction with Wessex Water, it is likely that the developer would enter into a requisition for the provision of an off-site sewer and improvements to the existing sewerage system, to provide a suitable connection for the site. Wessex Water have been consulted in relation to the scheme and raise no objection subject to a condition requiring a foul drainage strategy to be submitted and agreed.

8.59. Drainage & Flood risk – Conclusion

8.60. The scheme is not in an area at risk of flooding as defined in the NPPF – that is, it is not in Flood Zones 2 or 3 and therefore the development of the site follows the principles of national guidance and local policy to steer development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. There is a current issue with surface water flows from the site. This is because the flows across this greenfield site are not managed or attenuated and the nature of the flows, following the topography of the land can cause surface water run-off to a low point on Nottington Lane. This is not as a result of a lack of capacity of the existing system to deal with these flows but because of poor management, the ditches and entry points to the system are silted up. The information submitted with the application demonstrates that through a series of proposed measures within the site, these run-off rates will be substantially reduced.

8.61. The test in national guidance and Policies ENV5 & WEY12 is to ensure that development does not worsen flood risk on site or elsewhere. The evidence submitted shows that not only does the scheme comply with this test, but it will provide a considerable betterment, reducing this surface water run-off rates by nearly three-quarters and thereby reducing the risk of flooding in extreme events.

8.62. When dealing a with a technical material consideration which can be objectively assessed, Members’ should exercise caution in taking a contrary view unless there is similarly objectively assessed technical information presented to demonstrate a contrary position. Certain material considerations relevant to the determination of the application – such as the impact of the scheme on the character of the area or to neighbours’ living conditions will involve a degree of subjective judgement within a framework established by relevant policies and guidance. However, where technical material considerations can be measured through established and accepted methods, then it is necessary to provide similarly measured technical evidence questioning these findings for a contrary position to be sustained.

8.63. In this regard there is no technical evidence before members to demonstrate the applicant’s assessment is flawed. Members can therefore have confidence in an assessment provided by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer which is endorsed by the relevant statutory consultees. Members can also be confident that such technical information will likely be given greater weight by an Inspector against an anecdotal position expressing a perceived fear of future flooding events which is not evidenced by an equivalent technical assessment. It is accepted that the position put forward that development of a greenfield site could have a positive impact on surface water flows and thereby flood risk may appear counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, this position has been evidenced and furthermore accepted by the relevant statutory consultees.

8.64. The scheme will not prevent further flood events happening in Nottington village itself. However, nor could it reasonably be expected to. The village lies in an area at risk of flooding (Flood Zones 2 & 3) related to the River Wey and this will remain the case whether the site is developed or not. This is not the test the scheme has to pass in order to demonstrate its acceptability under the planning process. What the scheme has to demonstrate is that it can satisfactorily manage the risk of this site contributing to additional flood risk in the Flood Zone. In this respect it more than satisfies the tests in policy and national guidance not to increase flood risk in Nottington itself because it provides a considerable betterment to current unmanaged run-off from the site. Thereby it complies with the relevant policies and is acceptable is this regard.

8.65. This position is supported by the Lead Local Flood Authority & the Environment Agency as the relevant consultees. The LLFA advise that the “scheme presented has the potential to offer significant improvement to the localised flooding understood to affect Nottington Lane, and some reduction in peak flows received by the Main River system.” The proposals therefore not only comply with Policy ENV5, they also provide a betterment overall to the existing flood risk situation.

8.66. Highway Safety

8.67. Policy COM7 seeks to ensure that development is appropriately sited to locations where the use of sustainable modes of transport can be maximised and where the volume of traffic likely to be generated can be accommodated without exacerbating community severance. Likewise, COM7 seeks to resist development where the residual cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network are likely to be severe.

8.68. In addition Policy WEY12 seeks to ensure that;

“A network of road, footpath and cycle routes through the site and connecting to the A354 and Nottington Lane are provided to ensure that the development is well integrated into the wider route network.”

8.69. The previous application was refused on the basis that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not, by virtue of the resultant increased volume of traffic using Nottington Lane by reason of the two accesses proposed, have a significant detrimental impact on highway safety. Notwithstanding that the Council has resolved not to defend this reason at the forthcoming inquiry, it is worth considering the current proposals in respect of these concerns.

8.70. In order to fully assess the impacts of the development on highway safety, the applicant has provided a Transport Assessment and this, together with a Framework Travel Plan. This takes into account the impact of development on the allocated site as a whole, which includes the corner of land to the north, which falls outside of the application site.

8.71. With regard to the key routes affected by the proposal, the following observations are made:

“Existing flows on Nottington Lane are shown to be low, with around 220 vehicles in the peak hours and around 1,900 vehicles daily. Junction capacity assessments, set out in the TA… confirm that the proposed site access junctions are forecast to operate within capacity under all scenarios assessed.” The survey data was taken mid-week outside school holidays and therefore can reasonably expected to be representative of typical commuter and school-related traffic along Nottington Lane and the relevant junctions.

8.72. In addition, the TA states; “Dorchester Road (B3159) is an arterial route connecting the northern suburbs of Weymouth with the town centre, which is approximately 3.5 kilometres to the south of the site. Dorchester Road used to be part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) carrying approximately 30,000 vehicles per day. The Weymouth Relief Road (WRR) was constructed in 2011 and removed the majority of traffic from Dorchester Road… Improvements to pedestrian and cycle facilities on Dorchester Road have been completed … and have resulted in a calmer street environment on Dorchester Road.”

8.73. The Transport Assessment takes into account base traffic and speed data, highway safety records and accessibility, including pedestrian and cycle accessibility and existing public transport provision. As part of the improvements that were carried out on the opening of the relief road, a shared pedestrian/cycle route exists on the eastern side of Dorchester road, opposite the junction with Nottington Lane.

8.74. The provision of bus services is also considered to provide viable options for travelling within the area, and provide a suitable alternative to the 3.5km walk or cycle into the town centre. The nearest bus stops (taken from the centre of the northern part of the site) are located on Dorchester Road. The nearest northbound bus stop is situated approximately 400 metres walking distance and the nearest southbound stop situated 480 metres away. The nearest bus stops (taken from the centre of the southern part of the site) are also situated on Dorchester Road. The southbound bus stop is some 370 metres and the northbound stop is some 400 metres south east of the site. The various services operate at a combined frequency of approximately ten bus services per hour, between approximately 5.40 and 23.45, throughout the week. These services provide access to Weymouth Town Centre, Portland, Morrison’s supermarket, Dorchester Tesco’s, Dorchester South Railway Station, Dorchester Town Centre and Dorchester County Hospital, together with local schools and colleges.

8.75. The report also notes Upwey Station is 1.3km distant, a 16min walk or 4min cycle away with direct mainline services to Dorchester, Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton & London as well as Weymouth. There is also a less frequent service direct to Bath & Bristol. This is therefore a viable option for commuting and leisure trips as an alternative to single car trips. The site is therefore considered to be well located in relation to sustainable forms of travel and access to facilities.

8.76. It is proposed that two vehicular accesses would be provided on Nottington Lane in the form of priority T-junctions. The north eastern site access would be 6.7 metres wide at the entrance, with a 2.4m x 25m visibility splay in both directions and the north western site access would be 6 metres wide at the entrance with 2.4m x 25m visibility splay in both directions. A pedestrian route into the site is shown via a proposed shared pedestrian / cycle path to the east of the proposed vehicular access onto Nottington Lane. This would be 3 metres in width, with the carriageway widened to 5.5m in width and would connect with the Dorchester Road shared foot/cycle way. The current traffic calming measures on Nottington Lane would be replaced with a new scheme.

8.77. In addition to the proposed accesses from Nottington Lane, it is proposed that a further access via a priority junction would be provided from Dorchester Road at the south eastern corner of the site, which would also provide a dedicated pedestrian and cycle route in the form of a 3 metre wide segregated path. This would link in with the existing cycle routes along Dorchester Road providing a continuous route into the town centre. These junctions are considered to comply with the recommendations within Manual for Streets, and are likewise considered to be suitable for use by emergency vehicles, and are considered to have adequate capacity to serve the development. 8.78. It is intended that the internal layout of the site would be designed to provide a permeable network of streets, designed to encourage walking and cycling. In this regard, the current masterplan indicates a footpath along the northern edge of the site, which would provide improved connectivity between Nottington Village and Broadwey. Provision of this is intended to be a condition of approval of the scheme (Condition 2 below). As this is an outline application, no details have been submitted in relation to this at this stage.

8.79. Some of the 3rd party responses are critical of having accesses onto Nottington Lane in principle or alternatively having two access points onto this lane. The development could feasibly be served by the proposed Dorchester Road access if it was simply a case of considering the capacity of this access to serve the number of dwellings proposed, although there would be additional queuing at peak hours. However, the Local Plan allocation specifically seeks to provide the permeability shown to Nottington Lane and this is good design practice as set out in the Authority’s Design SPD as the alternative is creating what would in effect be a huge cul-de-sac.

8.80. An objective of the Council’s Urban Design SPG is to facilitate ease of movement by providing places that are easy to get to and move through and states; “Development should be accessible and provide places that connect with each other and are easy to move through, putting people before traffic and integrate land uses with transport”.

8.81. The SPG further advises that “New development should contribute to a well designed urban network of connected spaces and routes, for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. New routes should connect to existing routes and movement patterns. The degree of connection in a new development is often the key to its success. Established footpaths, short-cuts and minor roads can become the basis of enduring linkages”.

8.82. Therefore, the proposed accesses onto Nottington Lane are compliant with the aims of Policy WEY12 and the Council’s adopted Urban Design SPG. But more than this, no overriding harm in terms of highway safety from these accesses has been demonstrated as explored below. The Council does not have grounds to seek removal of either access onto Nottington Lane. This because they pass the policy tests by not having a severe detrimental effect on road safety and not having severe residual cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network. In the absence of harm, the applicant can reasonably expect the Nottington Lane accesses to be agreed by the Council.

8.83. As noted in paragraph 8.158 below, the second access onto Nottington Lane was incorporated specifically to address an impact to affected heritage assets raised by a statutory consultee. If such an access was unsafe, it would not be supported by officers, irrespective of its heritage benefits. However, there is no overriding evidence before members to show this is the case.

8.84. Parking provision is a reserved matter, for consideration at the detailed application stage. However, the Transport Assessment outlines that parking numbers would be determined in line with the Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset Residential Car Parking Study (May 2011). It is intended that car parking would be provided for each dwelling in a location that is easily accessible from the property, together with secure and sheltered cycle spaces.

8.85. From analysis of predicted trip generations, the Transport Assessment reports that the allocated site could generate around 187 and 168 additional two-way vehicular movements at peak times during the morning and afternoon. It is likely that the use of the three accesses would be split as follows:

 north eastern site access on Nottington Lane – 165 units;  north western site access on Nottington Lane - 59 units; and  site access on Dorchester Road – 136 units.

8.86. This assessment is based on a total development of 360 units to take account of other approved developments (the 10 units approved under App. No. WP/17/00725/FUL on the adjacent land). It also does not include a discount for the 10% reduction in trip rates which the proposed Travel Plan seeks to deliver. It therefore can be considered to be robust. This assessment has informed a capacity assessment, which has also taken into account a growth factor for the five-year period 2015 to 2020, in order to fully understand the impacts of the development on the local highway network.

8.87. The report clarifies this predicted increase in traffic of around 3 cars per minute during the morning peak can be successfully accommodated on the wider highway network. This is measured as a maximum Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC). Where the modelling produces a RFC value of 1 (or 100%), then in effect the flow of traffic equals the capacity of the junction. Typically a RFC value of 0.85 (or 85%) where junctions are not controlled indicates the junction has capacity, with higher ratios closer to 1 indicating that queues or delays are likely to occur.

8.88. The Transport Statement (TA) clarifies that the RFC values for the development are a tiny fraction of this “saturation” level for the proposed accesses onto either Nottington Lane or Dorchester Road. The maximum RFC value for these junctions being 0.10 (10%) for traffic turning out of the development onto Dorchester Road or the eastern access onto Nottington Lane, well below the capacity level of 0.85.

8.89. The highest RFC figure in the report is for traffic using the Nottington Lane/Dorchester Road junction, where a RFC of 0.34 (34%) is predicted when the proposed additional traffic is added to existing levels for traffic heading south down Dorchester Road turning into Nottington Lane. This is the only figure in the transport assessment which advises a queue (of 1 vehicle) may occur with a delay of approximately 10 seconds during the morning peak (08.00 – 09.00). This is for the completed development of 340 houses plus the adjacent approved scheme for a further 10 units.

8.90. The assessment also clarifies that the development will result in an increase in traffic of approximately 79 vehicles during the morning peak (1.3 vehicles per minute or one every 45 seconds) at the Dorchester Road/Littlemoor Road junction. This would represent an increase of 5% at this junction. In addition, at the Dorchester Road/Manor Roundabout junction, an additional 30 traffic movements are predicted, during the a.m. peak hour, an increase of 1%.

8.91. Therefore the junction modelling shows is there is considerable capacity in the highway network along both Nottington Lane and Dorchester Road to accommodate the predicted increases in traffic generation arising from the scheme. The Transport Assessment concludes:

“The analysis indicates that all junctions would be able to operate within capacity with the development traffic. This is not surprising given the previous role of Dorchester Road carrying circa 30,000 vehicles per day. It is therefore considered that there will be no severe impact on any of the junctions or on the wider highway network considered in this TA”. (paragraph 8.19).

The proposed increased daily traffic movements of around 1600 trips daily from the completed development can be seen to be very small proportion of the previous traffic levels of 30,000 vehicles per day along Dorchester Road.

8.92. With regards to highway safety, the applicants have obtained the accident records from DCC for the period 01/06/2010 - 31/05/2015 in the TA. They record 7 accidents during this period, all categorised as “slight” [the three categorisations are from “slight” to “serious” to “fatal”] and all along Dorchester Road. The report notes that “five out of the seven [incidents] were likely caused as a result of driver error or misjudgement. There does not appear to be a particular pattern to the location or timings of when and where the accidents occur” (paragraph 3.3)

8.93. An updated examination of the current data for the last five years (available on www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk), reveals six incidents in the vicinity of the site, five on Dorchester Road and one on Nottington Lane. All accidents were categorised as slight. Two of the incidents date back to 2012 and will shortly drop off the 5-year period of data, pointing to a general decline in the frequency of accidents in the vicinity of the site. The TA notes an improvement in traffic safety on Dorchester Road following the opening of the Relief Road. This is borne out by DCC’s own data which shows two serious collisions and a fatality along the wider stretch of Dorchester Road from Manor Roundabout to Upwey in 2012, but no serious or fatal incidents since. The accident data therefore does not bear out the concerns expressed in some of the third party responses as to a lack of safety in the vicinity of the site.

8.94. Furthermore, the accident record over the wider area does not bear out the claims in the 3rd party responses of increased danger from significant levels of alleged rat running from new developments in Chickerell, through what would be a tortuous and convoluted route via Coldharbour & Nottington Lane in an effort to reach Dorchester Road. This is presumably in preference to taking routes direct onto the Chickerell link road and thereby to the A354.

8.95. The already high levels of rat running and the danger of using Nottington Lane alleged by 3rd parties would be expected to be reflected in the accident records. However, the number of incidents on Nottington Lane is not noticeably higher than other rural routes on the fringe of the town. In the stretch between the top of School Hill, Chickerell to the Dorchester Road/Nottington Lane junction there are three incidents recorded. In addition a further two incidents are recorded between Nottington Lane and the B3151 at Buckland Ripers. This is a total of 5 incidents – all slight - in 5 miles of highway. A rate of one slight incident per annum over a five-mile stretch of highway.

8.96. To make a comparison, along the 1.2 mile stretch of Coombe Valley Road between its junctions with Littlemoor Road and Plaisters Lane there are eleven incidents recorded in the last five years with three serious collisions documented. This stretch of Coombe Valley Road would have similar disadvantages to those alleged for Nottington Lane, such as narrow carriageway widths, lack of footways and potential for rat running from new developments (Louviers Road). Yet the number, frequency and severity of incidents along Nottington Lane are all lower for a stretch of road more than four times greater in length. 8.97. An otherwise typical residential street in the town such as Weymouth Bay Avenue records four incidents in the last five years along its 0.4 mile length. In this context, the evidence does not support the allegations of increased danger along Nottington Lane currently.

8.98. To support a reason for refusal, a Local Planning Authority must evidence those reasons. The lack of data to support the harm contended by 3rd parties makes arguments to resist the scheme on highways grounds weak.

8.99. The proposals include a scheme for highway works stretching from the Dorchester Road/Nottington Lane junction and beyond the proposed western access onto Nottington Lane. This will completely revise the existing traffic calming measures along Nottington Lane, taking out the current chicanes. They will be replaced with raised tables at the proposed junctions on Nottington Lane and speed cushions between the two accesses in order to reduce speeds on the lane. The 20mph limit will remain.

8.100.In addition, there is currently no pedestrian footway along Nottington Lane beyond the properties at No.1 & No.16 and it is not unusual to see pedestrians walking in the highway along Nottington Lane. Whilst the masterplan is indicative, it shows how a continuous pedestrian (and possibly cycleway) route could be provided from the Dorchester Road junction as far as the bridge adjoining the access to Nottington Court. Provision of this is conditioned below.

8.101.This will both be a marked improvement in safety for pedestrian movements between Nottington village and the Dorchester Road but also provides an attractive walking route through the suggested open spaces in the development. In addition, this provides a safe route for residents of the new development from the site to the schools and Redlands sport facilities on Dorchester Road and a safer route for residents in Nottington village to these facilities as well as improved access to the wider cycleway network in the town.

8.102.A number of the representations have made reference to the prospect of developments proposed for Chickerell for example leading to increased rat running from Chickerell, via Cold Harbour & then Nottington to the Dorchester Road and this adds to the cumulative impacts on Nottington. These are matters which are properly considered when the planning applications for those sites are determined by the relevant Planning Authority. In that regard it is noted that the allocation for the Chickerell Urban Extension (Policy CHIC2) in the adopted plan requires that the development will be focused around a traditional street with frontage development connecting from the Chickerell Link Road to School Hill, and from School Hill to Chickerell Hill. Therefore occupants of this new development would have a direct route to the Chickerell Link Road (B3157) and thereby the wider road network along the A354 to the relief road.

8.103.It has been put forward by objectors is that occupants of new developments in Chickerell would choose in considerable numbers to take the narrow and tortuous lane through Coldharbour to Nottington and presumably on to Dorchester Road. Furthermore, that this would be preferred in sufficient numbers to a direct link from the new development onto the Link Road and thereby the wider A-road network. No assessment could offer guarantees that rat-running would never occur. Nonetheless, Members’ attention is drawn to the considerable capacity demonstrated at all relevant junctions in the Transport Assessment in paragraphs 8.74 – 8.77 above. Any possible additional traffic generated by other developments would have to be at levels vastly in excess of the total traffic generated by the proposed 340 dwellings on Nottington Lane in order to overload the junctions concerned. There is no technical evidence before members to demonstrate this is the case.

8.104.The proposals have been considered by the Highways Authority who have confirmed they have no objections to the scheme.

8.105.Before these works can be implemented, the applicant will need to secure approval from the Highways Authority to carry out works within the public highway. This will be subject to DCC’s own procedures for approving a S278 agreement for works to the existing highway which includes a safety audit of the proposals.

8.106.Highway Safety - Conclusion

8.107.The test in Policy COM7 is that “Development will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that it would not have a severe detrimental effect on road safety, or measures can be introduced to reasonably mitigate potentially dangerous conditions.” The information in the Transport Assessment assesses the existing traffic movements and clarifies the predicted traffic levels generated by the development.

8.108.It then goes on to demonstrate that this predicted increase in traffic can be adequately accommodated on the surrounding highway network. The modelling of the impacts of the development shows that the additional traffic added to the existing traffic levels still leaves all junctions in the vicinity to be considerably below capacity. The scheme revises the traffic calming measures on Nottington Lane and has the potential to provide safe pedestrian routes along Nottington Lane where currently there are none providing a significant benefit. All of these would demonstrate a scheme which clearly complies with the test in paragraph 8.82 above.

8.109.However, there is on the face of it some distance between an industry- standard technical assessment using relevant data which concludes that after 360 houses have been built and traffic grown exponentially that the Nottington Lane/Dorchester Road junction will still only be at a third of its capacity, compared against an anecdotal position on the part of third parties that the road network is at saturation now. It is plausible that the exceptional events of delays or congestion on the road network are more immediately memorable than days where trips take place with no incident. This may colour views of the state of the road network and understandably drive a desire not to see such uncommon events become the ‘norm’.

8.110.Some of the comments with regard to danger to pedestrians along Nottington Lane need to be balanced against the scheme being able to provide a footpath for pedestrians within the site. This will be an improvement over the current situation, even allowing for the increase in traffic along Nottington Lane as a result of the development. It should also be noted that the extent of danger alleged currently on the network is not supported by the accident record. It may also simply be that a personal perception of traffic levels being at capacity is different to that measured and modelled through a transport assessment. 8.111.As noted in paragraph 8.50 above, where the assessment of a technical material consideration can be objectively measured through accepted standard methodologies such as predicted traffic generation, then caution should be applied to contrary views which are not similarly evidenced with relevant technical information by similarly suitably qualified and experienced engineers. Particularly where the position of 3rd parties appears on the face of it to be diametrically opposed to the technical data before members, then in order to give weight to 3rd parties’ position, there must similarly be technical evidence presented to support such a position. The tests in the relevant policies need to be assessed on measured evidence of their impacts, not an otherwise unsubstantiated fear of future events. Members will be aware of the difficulty in sustaining reasons for refusal on technical material considerations where overriding weight has been given to neighbour’s concerns which do not have the benefit of the necessary technical evidence to support the concerns expressed.

8.112.In this respect members are advised that the technical information before them demonstrates the test in Policy COM7 is complied with. There is no technical evidence to show that the scheme would have a severe detrimental effect on road safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network are likely to be severe. Indeed there is no technical evidence before members to cast doubt on the assessment in the TA that the highway network has considerable capacity to absorb the traffic generated by the development. Rather than having severe detrimental effects, the scheme will also result in improvements to safety, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists by improving provision for these sustainable modes of travel. Against this, is the anecdotal position of third parties. This does not give the Authority grounds to refuse the application, a position accepted by members previously.

8.113.In light of the above, the Highway Authority has raised no objections, subject to conditions, and the proposed scheme is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety, and is in compliance with Policy COM7 of the Local Plan.

8.114.Impact of the visual and landscape character of the area

8.115.Policy ENV1 and ENV10 seek to safeguard the landscape qualities and local distinctiveness of the area, requiring development proposals to provide sufficient hard and soft landscaping to successfully integrate development with the character of the surrounding area. In addition, Policy WEY12 seeks to secure:

“Substantial landscape planting is provided to ensure that the development does not have an adverse impact on the landscape character, the character of the adjacent Conservation Area or the amenity of surrounding properties.”

8.116.This site falls outside of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but is situated partially within the Conservation Area, and within the vale landscape, which is of local importance. It was also previously part of an Important Open Gap (IOG) in the previous 2005 Weymouth & Portland Local Plan. However, this designation was not carried forward to the current Local Plan where the site is now allocated for development under Policy WEY12. The Council has therefore adopted a position that any policy previously relating to IOGs restricting development in these areas is not required to meet the objectives in the current Local Plan. Thereby any policy covering these areas in previous Local Plans no longer has any weight. 8.117.In addition, it also follows that by allocating the land in question for development, the Council accepts that its development has acceptable impacts on the wider landscape character of the area, subject to the criteria in the policy.

8.118.The undulating land and mature trees which enclose the western portion of the site contribute to the character of the site, with the immediate character being a small-scale agricultural landscape within a sheltered setting. In order to further assess the impacts of the development, the applicants have submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).

8.119.Long distance views towards the site are possible from short stretches of footpaths on the higher ridges to the north and south. Most of these are of low sensitivity due to the distances involved, and due to the backdrop of the built development of Broadwey within these views. Para 1.2.43 of the LVIA notes that the site is visible from the high ridge to the north within the AONB, but at a distance of 2.5km, it considers this view to be barely discernible in the overall panoramic view over the urban area.

8.120.Medium range views towards the site are limited due to the enclosed nature of the hedge-lined lanes within the area. It is likely that short - medium range views from public footpaths within the area would be possible, however, again, the impacts of this are reduced by the mature vegetated boundaries which surround some of the site, and adjacent field boundaries/River Wey. From these viewpoints, which are often found within gaps in the vegetation and field accesses, the development would be readily visible, but seen in the context of the built form of Broadwey. These views tend to be glimpsed views, and the proposed development is not considered to dominate the visual amenity of the area.

8.121.The most sensitive receptors to the site relate to private views from dwellings running along Dorchester Road and Nottington Court. There would undoubtedly be a change in outlook for these properties, however, the loss of a private view is not reason to refuse this application.

8.122.It is considered that the development of this site would have a localised impact on the landscape character within the immediate vicinity by bringing development on the fringe of the town at Redlands and Broadwey closer to Nottington. The previous important local gap designations in the 2005 Local Plan are replaced, by a new ‘green infrastructure strategy’ proposed by Policy ENV3 (Green Infrastructure Network). This policy seeks to resist development that would undermine an area’s inclusion within that network, unless clearly outweighed by other considerations. In terms of this particular site, Para 3.28 of the background paper states the following:

8.123.This part of the Important Open Gap serves to separate the village of Nottington from the built up area of Weymouth at Redlands and Broadwey and provides a link between these latter areas and the open countryside to the west. The open gap is comprised of farmland and tree belts and generally rises from west to east. It is of considerable visual importance to the setting of both Nottington and Broadwey/Redlands, this being acknowledged both by the inclusion of part of the Open Gap within the Nottington Conservation Area and the identification of the whole area as being of Local Landscape Importance.

8.124.The LVIA considers that the established context of built development in the area is such that the proposed development need not be inherently intrusive. The LVIA takes into account the change in character to the area, from farmland to part of the townscape, and weighs the harm against the benefits of introducing a net gain in the number of individual trees on the site, along with the introduction of public parkland and managed native woodland. On weighing these impacts against the benefits, the LVIA concludes that there would be a neutral effect on the landscape.

8.125.The Landscape Officer has been consulted, and concludes; “The proposed development of up to 340 units on the Site is not considered to be an over development with regards the landscape or visual impact owing to the provision of public open spaces and the retention of the existing shelterbelt/parkland planting. The Development will be largely ‘contained’ by the established peripheral woodland planting/hedgerows and, as such, the landscape and visual impacts resulting from the proposed Development are not considered to adversely affect the designations.”

8.126.Impact of the visual and landscape character of the area – Conclusion

8.127.There are potential landscape impacts from the urbanisation of this currently rural area. This would follow for the majority of greenfield sites which are developed. Therefore in order to find overriding harm from the development of a greenfield site, there must be a particular identifiable environmental harm resulting – such as an impact to a designated landscape or highest grade agricultural land for example. Otherwise it would be possible to resist all greenfield development simply on landscape grounds. It is clear that the Council accepted that the landscape impacts of the development of the site are acceptable in principle in allocating the land for development in the Local Plan subject to the provisos in the policy.

8.128.The loss of a sizable undeveloped gap separating Nottington village from Weymouth is considered to impact the visual amenity of the immediate locality. However, the test in the preamble to Policy WEY12 is that “development in this location does not result in the physical or visual convergence of the urban area of Weymouth and more rural Nottington, and a substantial green buffer will be retained alongside substantial tree / woodland planting”. Notwithstanding the site results in the development of part of the previous IOG, the indicative masterplan shows how a scheme could be delivered for 340 houses which complies with this test. In effect the position taken by the local plan is that not all of the land previously included in the IOG designation is required to be protected from development in order to serve the strategic function of preventing the physical or visual convergence of Weymouth with Nottington.

8.129.Any landscape harm caused by the scheme is not considered to be significantly adverse which is the test in Policy ENV1. Despite the loss of the gap, the proposed development would sit comfortably within the urban context of Weymouth, without significantly comprising the character of Nottington village. The Landscape Officer does not object and the principle of development in this location has been accepted by the adoption of Policy WEY12. As an adopted policy in a current Local Plan, this is the starting point in determining the application. The proposed scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of its impacts on the landscape and visual amenity of the area. Furthermore, the proposed development is not considered to significantly affect the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed development is therefore considered to comply with the provisions of policies ENV1, ENV10 & WEY12.

8.130.Impact on trees

8.131.Policy ENV10 seeks to safeguard the landscape and townscape setting and requires that development seeks to provide for the future retention and protection of trees and other natural features that contribute to an areas’ distinctive character. There is a group Tree Preservation Order covering the tree belts from the former Nottington House parkland and those trees lying within the Nottington Conservation Area are also protected. There are also a number of individual trees protected by TPOs both within and adjoining the site, such as those within the grounds of Nottington Court. There is a reference in the 3rd party responses to ancient woodland on the site but members are advised that there is not a designated ancient woodland on the site.

8.132.The indicative layout demonstrates how the development could be provided on site without significant detriment to the group of trees. It is proposed that the woodland areas would be managed for overall improvement in diversity and species mix, and any trees currently shown to be removed are identified as poor quality. Any trees to be removed are stated to be replaced with specific trees within the landscape proposals. The additional tree planting proposed within the development areas and open spaces would result in a net gain in specimen trees. It is also proposed to thicken up the shelterbelt plantation. The details of this would be a matter for the reserved matters stage. In order to facilitate one of the accesses onto Nottington Lane, a section of hedge would need to be removed.

8.133.In order to fully asses the impacts of the development, the applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report. This takes into account the impacts of the proposed layout on trees. It notes that there would be a short term temporary negative impact due to the removal of trees required to develop the site, but this would be limited by planting and establishment of replacement trees in equally publically visible locations so that the mid-long term impacts would be neutral-positive. A long-term woodland and tree management plan is recommended as part of any detailed planning application.

8.134.Impact on trees - Conclusion

8.135.The Trees Officer has been consulted in relation to the application. They confirm their previous position that they raise no objection at this outline stage. Detailed method statements and tree protection proposals would be required as part of any full application. Therefore any negative impacts from removal of the trees shown to facilitate the development would be balanced out by replacement planting. The Tree Officer notes the proposed scheme retains the key trees on the site. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment identifies that key trees on the site, such as veteran oaks will benefit from the proposals due to the current detrimental impacts of cattle damage and soil disturbance on these nationally important specimens. They will also come into the public domain. Overall there will be a net gain in this respect. The scheme therefore complies with Policy ENV10 and WEY12 and is a positive aspect in the balancing exercise.

8.136.Impact of the development on the historic environment 8.137.A portion of the site falls within the Nottington Conservation Area. Para 72 (1) and (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the general duty of the Local Planning Authority in respect of applications within a Conservation Area, stating the following:

8.138.(1) In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, … special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are the planning Acts and Part I of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953.

8.139.In addition, para. 66 of the 1990 act states that;

“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”

In this application we are concerned with the impact of development on the setting of these heritage assets.

8.140.Para 17 of the NPPF considers that heritage assets should be conserved in an appropriate manner for the benefit of this and future generations. The NPPF seeks to safeguard the historic environment and heritage features from substantial harm, unless there are substantial public benefits which outweigh that harm.

8.141.Para 133 of the NPPF states: 'Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas ... and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance.'

8.142.Policy ENV4 likewise seeks to safeguard designated and non-designated heritage assets, together with their setting, and requires any harm to be justified and weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

8.143.Nottington comprises a linear village nestled in to the valley bottom and grouped around Nottington Lane and Harbour Hill. The village is characterised by a number of Dorset vernacular cottages and other buildings, built mainly along the western side of Harbour Hill and Nottington Lane. The southern portion of the village is dominated by properties fronting the lane, including a Grade II listed terrace of properties. The northern part of the village has fewer properties fronting the lane and has properties either side. Properties become more dispersed as Nottington Lane bends to the east towards the application site where a number of Grade II listed properties can be found. These include Nottington Spa, an imposing three storey octagonal structure which sits as a landmark building within the lane. The Cottage, River View, Stayer Cottage, and Greystones, together with Deutzia Cottage are all Grade II listed properties sitting along Nottington Lane, and April Cottage, also a Grade II listed property, which sits behind Nottington Court.

8.144.The Nottington Conservation Area Appraisal identifies the significance of the historic area and states the following: 8.145.The hamlet of Nottington lies in the valley of the River Wey and forms a group with the settlements of Upwey, along the valley to the north, and Radipole to the south. It occupies a secluded situation in undulating countryside, which contrasts with the open development of modern Weymouth close by. The older buildings in the hamlet are predominantly rural in character and have associations with a mill, a malthouse, a farm and a spa at a sulphurous spring. Some newer houses have been erected in close relationship with the older buildings, but the established policy is to maintain the rural character by the strict control of new development.

8.146.The Conservation Area embraces all the buildings listed as being of special architectural or historic interest at Nottington. These buildings are situated on both sides of Nottington Lane. The area extends to the hillside and woodland around the site of Nottington House, as these features frame one side of the hamlet, separating it from suburban development along Dorchester Road, the main road to the east. Trees and a hillside also provide the boundary to the area on the western side of the valley.

8.147.The Conservation Area appraisal identifies the setting of the village and its buildings as rural in character. The area retains its rural charm and occupies a secluded position from Broadwey, owing in part to the winding nature of the lane and significant tree coverage in the area. It is not considered that this character would significantly change. The built form of development would encroach closer to the village, but the twists and turns in the road, and change in orientation of properties facing inwards towards Nottington, assist in providing that secluded feel which contributes to the rural character. On leaving Nottington village around the final bend, the suburban influence of Weymouth is already apparent, and it is at this point that the proposed development would have most impact, outside of the core of the village.

8.148.The Conservation Area extends beyond the nucleated form of Nottington, and extends to the countryside around the former Nottington Manor. The proposal seeks to avoid development within these “horns” of the Conservation Area, with only limited tree removal proposed. Whilst there would be some built form proposed within the lower western section of the site (closest to Nottington village), this would be surrounded by the existing trees and a significant area of parkland, limiting its impacts. Overall the parts of the wider application site within the CA are indicated to remain as part of the proposed open space. A number of third party responses state the whole site to be within the Conservation Area. However, this is incorrect.

8.149.Due to the winding and enclosed nature of Nottington Lane and the presence of mature trees at the turn in the road, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in substantial harm to the setting of the listed properties or the character of the built form of the conservation area. When looking back from the valley and ridges to the west, the shelterbelt of trees and estate wall, along the western boundary of the site, form notable features. Again, these elements are proposed to be retained.

8.150.The submitted Heritage Assessment considers the significance of the Conservation Area in more detail, having regard also to the nearby listed buildings. It notes that views are available from within the site to Hardy Monument, located in excess of 7 kilometres to the north-west. This has been taken on board within the illustrative layout, which seeks to retain and incorporate these views into the scheme design. 8.151.The Heritage Statement notes 8 Grade II listed buildings located within the Conservation Area and identifies that these are screened by the tree belts which line the north and west boundaries of the site, ensuring that there is limited inter-visibility between these assets and the site, and serving to visually separate the site from the built development found within the Conservation Area.

8.152.The nearest Listed Building to the development is Deutzia Cottage, which is identified as a heritage asset of high significance, with the significance deriving primarily from its special architectural and historic interest. The assessment concludes that there would be some impact to Deutizia Cottage through impacting upon the rural setting in which it sits, however the substantial tree screening between the site and the asset would ensure no visual impact. Overall, the assessment concludes that while there would be some partial erosion of the semi-rural nature of the asset’s setting, the impact of this would be negligible on the overall significance of the asset. It is considered that this assessment would also be representative of the impact to the group of listed buildings, including Nottington Spa, located further to the north.

8.153.The appraisal identifies Nottington Conservation Area as a heritage asset of moderate significance, with this significance derived primarily from its special architectural and historic interest, its special character and appearance and the number of listed buildings contained within it. The setting of the Conservation Area, including its largely rural surrounds, also positively contributes to the overall significance of the asset. The assessment considers that there would be some impact on views of the Conservation Area with the built form becoming more apparent within the foreground when viewed from the eastern parts of the site and from the gaps between houses on Dorchester Road. While the views between individual buildings within the Conservation Area and the site would not be affected by the proposed development, the experience of the Nottington Conservation Area as a relatively isolated semi- rural settlement would be altered with residential development visible to the east of the settlement when viewed from within the site and from Dorchester Road.

8.154.The Heritage Statement considers that while the majority of the special interest of the Conservation Area, including all of its listed buildings, would be preserved, the proposed development would have a minor adverse impact on the significance of the asset through the partial erosion of its semi-rural setting, with the site becoming more suburban in character. It considers that any such impact would be markedly less than substantial and this needs to be weighed against the wider public benefits of the scheme, in line with the advice as set out under Paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

8.155.The appraisal also identifies the former presence of Nottington House, which was understood to have been built as a private dwelling by the Steward family, and would have been one of the largest buildings within the settlement, sat in the western reaches of the site, with its principal elevation facing east over the parkland. Although Nottington House and much of its grounds have now been lost, the remnants of this landscaped park are still legible and so have been considered as a non-designated heritage asset, but of low significance.

8.156.The appraisal considers that the development would lead to a degree of harm to the significance of the parkland, but it is considered that the asset is already of the lowest significance with numerous twentieth-century alterations and interventions having seen much of its significance lost previously. This has included the demolition of Nottington House and the removal of a number of trees as well as the construction of Nottington Court.

8.157.Historic England have accepted the principle of development, and supported the allocation of the site in the adopted Local Plan. During the previous application, Historic England raised concerns in relation to the loss of the gap separating and secluding Nottington village from the main road on the ridge above adversely impacting on its sense of place and eroding its rural tranquillity and relationship to the former Nottington House landscape. Historic England were concerned at the time it had not been demonstrated how the development could successfully be achieved without detracting from the Conservation Area.

8.158.The scheme was amended as a result and HE revised their views. They confirm they do not object to the current application as the scheme takes on board their previous comments for the reasons stated in paragraphs 5.7 – 5.12 above. There are aspects of HE’s response which will need to be addressed at the reserved matters stage, but for the purposes of this the principle of development under this outline application, Historic England have no objections. The Design and Conservation Officer agrees with the conclusions of the Heritage Statement and considers the illustrative layout to be acceptable, having overcome previous concerns.

8.159.Impact of the development on the historic environment - Conclusion

8.160.In conclusion, the proposed development is considered to result in less than substantial harm to the historic environment. The impacts of the proposal therefore need to be weighed against the public benefit of the scheme as advised in para. 134 of the Framework. The benefits include the provision of public access to both the wooded and parkland area, which contribute positively to the character of the area, but currently fall within private ownership. In terms of the detail surrounding the layout and design of the scheme, this is considered at the reserved matters stage. The masterplan is however considered to demonstrate that a scheme could be sensitively provided on site without significant harm to the historic environment and no objection is raised by either the Design and Conservation Officer or Historic England.

8.161.The proposed development is therefore considered to comply with the provisions of the NPPF and policy ENV4. On this basis the scheme also satisfies the statutory tests in Section 66 & Section 72 of the 1990 Act to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings. This is therefore a neutral factor in the planning balance.

8.162.The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Evaluation which outlines the results of a desk-based study and further site investigations. No significant archaeological features were found. The County Archaeologist previously raised no objection and did not require further work to be undertaken.

8.163.Design

Policy ENV10, ENV11 and ENV12 seek to ensure that streets, spaces and the positioning and design of dwellings provide well-defined places which enhance local character and distinctiveness, and avoid opportunities for fear and crime. As this application is only at outline stage, only indicative details have been provided in relation to the layout and design of buildings. Notwithstanding this, the Urban Design Officer has commented on the application and considers that the illustrative masterplan, and principles governing the layout, are appropriate and should result in a high quality piece of townscape. Comments have been received from the Crime Prevention and Design Adviser who likewise raises no in-principle objections.

8.164.Design - Conclusion

8.165.The matters of detail raised within the comments received can be taken into consideration at the detailed matters stage. Nonetheless, members can be satisfied at this stage that the proposed masterplan appropriately demonstrates that a development of the size proposed could be successfully achieved on the site.

8.166.Impact on Neighbour’s living conditions

8.167.Policy ENV16 seeks to ensure proposals do not cause significant adverse effects on the amenity of existing and future residents. The site lies in close proximity to a number of residential properties, with those most affected being those along Dorchester Road with gardens bordering the site, and those living within Nottington Court overlooking the development.

8.168.Only indicative details of the siting of the buildings are available at this outline stage. Looking at the illustrative plans it is noted that properties are generally set back from the site boundary, mostly with their back gardens abutting the gardens of the existing properties. They are also orientated and positioned to minimise the impact on neighbours.

8.169.A number of the third party comments received raise concerns over the loss of privacy, loss of light or impacts due to the proximity of the development. The majority of these concerns are raised by residents living either along Dorchester Road or in Nottington Court, which currently have an open aspect over the fields. The proposed development would undoubtedly affect the outlook of these neighbours and their concerns are understood. However, a change to an outlook does not automatically equate to a significant adverse effect which is the test in ENV16. To resist the scheme at the outline stage would require the LPA to demonstrate that there was no reasonable prospect that 340 houses could be built on the site without breaching the significant adverse effect test in the policy. This is not the case.

8.170.The indicative layout shows how this level of development could be achieved with properties in Dorchester Road either backing onto gardens with houses beyond or small parking courts with a handful of properties indicated side-on to these boundaries. The properties from 421 - 483 Dorchester Road have broadly consistent garden depths around 18m, with the properties to the south having larger gardens. Therefore maintaining adequate privacy from window- to-window distances (usually around 20m) will be straightforward on any reserved matters layout. The land is generally falling to the west, further limiting the physical impact of any properties behind Dorchester Road. On the western end, there is 20m from the front of Nottington Court to its boundary and an area of open space is indicated directly in front of Nottington Court as a buffer to these neighbours.

8.171.Impact on Neighbour’s living conditions – Conclusion 8.172.Overall the scheme would result in existing properties bordering onto the new dwellings. The resulting relationship would be a typical one common across all suburban areas in the town. This is not considered to result in a significant adverse loss of privacy, or significant adverse effects on the living conditions of occupiers of properties through inadequate daylight or excessive overshadowing, overbearing impact, which are the tests in ENV16. A scheme which maintains adequate living conditions at the properties approved under WP/15/725/FUL is also clearly feasible from the indicative masterplan. In addition, the masterplan demonstrates 340 dwellings can be achieved on the site with adequate living conditions for occupiers of the new dwellings.

8.173.The impacts on individual properties will be considered as part of each reserved matters phase when full details of the dwellings and their layout is submitted. However, for the purposes of this outline scheme, the information demonstrates 340 dwellings can be accommodated on the site whilst having acceptable impacts on neighbouring properties.

8.174.There would be more activity generally on the site, given its current agricultural nature. However, this activity associated with residential use would again be entirely common to the relationship in the remainder of the town where residential properties adjoin other dwellings. This would not represent grounds to refuse the application.

8.175.Overall the impacts of the development on existing properties is considered minor to-moderate at worst. It would not breach the “significant adverse” test in Policy ENV16. The scheme thereby complies with this policy and this is a neutral factor in the planning balance.

8.176.Having regard to the construction phase of the development, the impacts of this, given the scale of the site, is recognised, and in line with the advice of Environmental Health, a condition would be recommended on any consent requiring a site construction management plan, to mitigate these impacts on residents.

8.177.Impact on protected species

8.178.Policy ENV2 of the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan seeks to safeguard designated wildlife sites and seeks to conserve and enhance biodiversity, safeguarding habitats unless the need or public benefits associated with the development outweighs any loss. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been submitted as part of the application together with a Protected Species Appraisal. The habitat survey identified key areas susceptible to impact and outlines the possible effects. The appraisal goes on to identify the findings of the survey in respect of protected species.

8.179.During a survey carried out in 2013, an active badger sett was identified towards the north boundary of the site and an active heronry and rookery was found within the woodland along the northern and western boundaries of the site. The survey also identified the potential for other protected species to be present including bats, dormice, great crested newts, reptiles and nesting birds.

8.180.Since that survey was undertaken, further survey work has been carried out. This survey identified the presence of nine species of bats using the site for forage, and it identified a number of mature trees as having high potential for roosting bats. A dormice nest was also found near the south-west boundary of the site, and a badger set was found located near the north boundary. Although habitat for reptiles was considered sparse across the site, a single common lizard was recorded. A range of birds were also found to be using the site including a number of rare and notable species.

8.181.In order to safeguard habitats, the scheme design has sought to retain the high value habitats across the site, including the woodlands, hedgerows and ponds. A range of measures have been proposed to enhance the retained habitats, including shrub planting within the woodlands, new orchards, wildflower meadows, sensitive hedgerow and woodland management, erection of dormouse and bird nest boxes and construction of reptile refugia.

8.182.Mitigation and compensation measures have also been proposed including wildlife-friendly working practices such as phased vegetation clearance at less sensitive times of the year, requirements for a sensitive lighting strategy, a wildlife friendly management programme, and measures to safeguard the badger set. Also proposed is the erection of dormouse nest boxes, and the retention of the heronry and rookery within the plan, including the restriction of public access to the immediate area.

8.183.Impact on protected species - Conclusion

8.184.The mitigation measures proposed would avoid significant harm to the populations of protected species. The impacts on any species are considered to be low, and where such impacts exist, compensatory measures are suggested. It is considered satisfy the tests in Policy ENV2 and a condition would be placed on any consent requiring the provision of a biodiversity mitigation plan, in line with the advice of Natural England, who support the scheme.

8.185.In light of the above, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable, subject to a detailed Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) being worked up in consultation with the Natural Environment Team. The proposal is considered to provide suitable measures to mitigate the impacts of development which can be secured through the BMP. On this basis, the proposed development is considered to comply with policy ENV2 of the adopted Local Plan.

8.186.Land Contamination

Policy ENV9 seeks to safeguard the environment and people from the risks of pollution and land contamination.

8.187.The application is supported by a Geotechnical and Contamination Assessment Report which indicates that although widespread contamination is unlikely, there is a potential source of contamination at the site and that some sampling and testing of the near surface soil would be required. A further investigatory report has been submitted which concludes following numerous trial pits, that elevated levels of contamination are present in the far northwest of the site. Further testing would be required together with a remediation strategy. This may take the form of localised contaminated soil removal and/or capping of garden areas.

8.188.Land Contamination - Conclusion 8.189.The Environmental Health Officer has been consulted in relation to the application and raises no principle objection. The conclusions of the report recommend further site investigation, and it is considered appropriate to add conditions requiring this, together with a remediation strategy, in order to ensure land contamination is properly managed. It is considered that subject to conditions to deal with the above matters, the proposed development would be acceptable in this regard.

8.190.Affordable Housing

Policy HOUS1 of the adopted Local Plan requires at least 35% of the proposed dwellings to be ‘affordable housing’.

8.191.The Housing Enabling Officer has been consulted in relation to this application and gives details of the evidence base for affordable housing and provides guidance on the local housing needs within Weymouth. The agent is agreeable to commit to providing 35% of the dwellings as affordable housing, and if all 340 dwellings are to be provided on site, this equates to 119 units. In the event that there is a fraction of the affordable housing left over from the 35%, this would be sought in the form of a financial contribution. The Housing Enabling Officer has had regard to the number of applicants recently on the Housing Register and confirms that there is sufficient need to support this number of affordable units proposed.

8.192.Affordable Housing - Conclusion

8.193.A scheme which provides 35% of the units as affordable housing provided on- site would comply with the Council’s adopted policy HOUS1. A s106 agreement to secure this contribution is well advanced at the time of writing. On completion of this, the scheme will comply with Policy HOUS1. The provision of affordable housing to meet a substantial ongoing need is given significant positive weight in the planning balance.

8.194.Infrastructure Contributions

8.195.Community infrastructure Levy: The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a tool for local authorities to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of the area. Since the consideration of the earlier application, the Council has introduced its CIL-charging regime which forms part of the adopted Local Plan. CIL is charged at a rate of £93 per sq m for new dwellings. Whilst the scheme is at outline stage and the final CIL liability cannot be known at this stage, over the proposed 340 dwellings, the contributions secured towards local infrastructure provision will be considerable.

8.196.The CIL charges include contributions towards the following themes and apportioned as set out below in accordance with the Council’s adopted Regulation 123 list;

Culture & Leisure Facilities 10% Education & Training Facilities 25% Emergency Services 2.5% Flood Mitigation and Coast Protection 40% Green Infrastructure & Recreation 5% Healthcare 5% Public Realm 2.5% Transport 5% Utilities 2.5% Waste Management 2.5%

8.197.As part of the regulations which introduced CIL, this set out in law the tests the Council must meet to secure contributions other than CIL via a s106 agreement by being;

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Therefore any obligations in a s106 agreement must satisfy the above tests if the Council is to justify their inclusion in the legal agreement.

8.198.The previous application had sought individual contributions towards education and leisure provision at Redlands hub & Weymouth swimming pool. A detailed justification for these contributions was set out in the previous report as these were to be secured via a s106 agreement. However, as the Council’s CIL-charging regime has been found sound by the Local Plan Inspector and adopted, such justification for each application is not necessary in respect of the contributions secured under CIL. These will be allocated as set out in paragraph 8.170 above.

8.199.Where the Council will be collecting contributions via CIL towards education and leisure provision, it cannot seek additional contributions towards these factors via a legal agreement unless there was a site-specific facility to be provided – for example a school was to be built as part of the development. Otherwise the effect would be to double-charge the developer which could not be justified. The previously recommended education and leisure contributions are now picked up via CIL and there is no justification for additional contributions over and above the CIL charge for these factors. Therefore no monies are sought towards off-site infrastructure contributions as part of a s106 agreement for the current proposal.

8.200.Open Space:

8.201.Policy COM1 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to secure suitable provision towards improved community infrastructure where there is an identified need resulting from new development. In this regard para 6.2.5 of the Local Plan states the following:

“On-site provision of community infrastructure is likely to be sought for housing developments of 200 or more units or where the site area is 4 hectares or more, and may be triggered at a lower threshold of 50 or more units, for example in relation to young people’s play areas, if the standard would not otherwise be achieved in that locality. Otherwise a financial contribution will be collected.”

8.202.The scheme clearly exceeds those triggers and therefore it is appropriate to secure on-site provision in this case. Policy COM1 requires that the provision should be ‘appropriate to the scale and needs of the development having regard to:  existing facilities in the area, including the quantity and quality of provision;  the economic viability and the need for the development;  the ongoing maintenance requirements.’

8.203.Table 6.1 of the Local Plan sets out guidance on expected standards of community infrastructure. Within main towns, it expects that all areas should be within 600m of a local park or 1,200m of large park. Radipole Park Gardens which is 2.2ha in size is slightly in excess of this distance, at approximately 1.4km from the site. The park is also accessible from the site via the rights of way network and existing cycle lanes/routes Radipole Park is identified as being of a size to support a significant proportion of users and is designed principally for passive recreation, serving the recreational needs of the local population. The WPBC PPG17 Study (2007) identified the need for an additional 1ha of this typology in the north of Weymouth. Provision of this typology is unlikely to have changed since the assessment.

8.204.There is no set requirement in the adopted Local Plan for a specific size requirement per number of dwellings, but based upon the standard established policy C10 of the former Local Plan, which is the best available evidence for this type of calculation, an area of 45sqm of public open space would be required per dwelling. This would equate to an area of 1.53ha to support the proposed development.

8.205.Table 6.1 also advises that the expected standards for towns is to have a natural greenspace of at least 2ha in size within 1km walking distance of most people’s homes. The proposed development offers an area of 5.36 ha of open space, which is in excess of that required. It would also meet the requirement for access to natural and semi natural greenspace for the whole development and also a number of existing properties in Redlands, Broadwey and Nottington village.

8.206.The guidance contained within the Local Plan also expects that all areas should be within 2km of a 20ha natural open space. The WPBC PPG17 Study (2007) identifies three open spaces classified as natural and semi-natural greenspace totalling 35ha. This includes Lorton Meadows Nature Reserve, which is within approximately 1km walking distance from the site using the existing rights of way network. This thereby complies with the standards in the LP.

8.207.The proposals allow for the retention/provision of parkland and open space as discussed above and the supporting information indicated that this would include woodlands, ponds and wildflower meadows. The site is also well sited for access to the surrounding countryside via the existing rights of way network.

8.208.Although such a large area of open space is not necessarily required by policy, this expanse of parkland landscape weighs heavily as a key public benefit of the scheme, and assists in mitigating the impacts to the historic and natural environment. It also complies with the criteria in Policy WEY12 for substantial landscape planting. It is therefore considered that requiring open space provision of the size proposed as part of the scheme is justified in this instance. 8.209.The provision of this and its management would be secured through the proposed legal agreement.

8.210.Young persons play areas:

Having regard to young peoples play areas, table 6.1 of the Local Plan standard is for at least one Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP) and facilities for teenagers, such as a skate park and Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), within 1km of the centre. In addition, a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) should be available within 600m walking distance of the remaining areas. The closest existing play area to the site is the Redlands Play Area which provides equipment to NEAP standard. There is therefore already access to such facilities in line with the standards in the Local Plan.

8.211.The proposed development provides for approximately 1,000 sqm of defined/equipped play space and four smaller defined (non-equipped) play spaces totalling 1,600 sqm with natural features and landscape designed for play. Members were advised as part of the previous application that the original recommendation that the equipped play area be to NEAP standard be revised to be provision of 1,000 sqm of defined/equipped place space and four smaller defined (non-equipped) play spaces totalling 1,600 sqm.

8.212.The reason for removing the reference to the ‘NEAP standard’ (Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play) was in response to the specifics of this site. This ‘standard’ of play normally requires 465sqm of hard surfacing together with fencing. The applicant’s position is that space is intended to be an attractive and interesting natural play area, led by design quality. Rather than trying to avoid delivering something, the applicant is keen to avoid a situation in which a reference to the standards result in a less attractive and less innovative play space. Officers also have concerns that the standards could result in an overly urbanised appearance, which goes against the design and landscape objectives of creating play around natural features.

8.213.The agent is content that a neighbourhood play area be provided but it may not fully adhere to the NEAP standards. In the particular circumstances of this site, it is considered that the reference to NEAP standard is removed.

8.214.These facilities will be secured within the s106. Given the provision of formal and informal play space on-site, there is no requirement for additional off-site play space.

8.215.Infrastructure Contributions - Conclusion

8.216.The recommendation in paragraph 10.1 below requires the completion of a s106 agreement as part of the consent. In order to comply with the statutory tests applicable to a planning legal agreement, the contributions which form part of the agreement must satisfy the three tests set out above.

8.217.In terms of making the contributions being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, the provision of open space and young people’s play areas on site is considered essential in order to meet the strategic objective in the Local Plan to support sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities. This also complies with the Strategic Approach to community needs and infrastructure in the Local Plan that where possible and practicable (for example on larger developments), new local community facilities will be provided as part of the development, creating attractive and vibrant places to live.

8.218.Without the securing the proposed on-site contributions, the development would fail against these criteria and Policy COM1 which requires that where new development will generate a need for new or improved community infrastructure, and this need is not met through the Community Infrastructure Levy, suitable provision should be made on-site in larger developments.

8.219.The proposed contributions are plainly directly related to the development. They are on-site contributions as part of the overall masterplan for the development of the site. The residential development of the site creates a need for additional open space and play provision within the site to meet the increased demand resulting from the development and the increase in population within the area.

8.220.The proposed contributions are also considered to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The proposed contributions for young people’s play areas are directly related to meeting the standards set out in the Local Plan in Table 6.1.

8.221.The open space provision exceeds a minimum level of provision which may otherwise be justified on other sites. However, this increased level of open space also provides a strategic function in meeting the criteria in Policy WEY12 whilst also satisfying the objective in paragraph 7.6.3 to ensure development in this location does not result in the physical or visual convergence of the urban area of Weymouth and more rural Nottington, by securing a substantial green buffer is retained alongside substantial tree / woodland planting. Therefore in this instance this level of open space is considered to be justified.

8.222.The proposed s106 contributions are therefore considered to satisfy the relevant tests and be justified in relation to the proposed development.

8.223.The CIL contributions which will be secured from the scheme are part of an adopted Local Plan document and do not require specific justification in relation to this scheme. The CIL contributions will provide acceptable mitigation for the off-site impacts of the scheme on local infrastructure.

8.224.Indoor & Outdoor Sports Provision:

8.225.It is relevant at this point to comment on the advice given by Sport England. Sport England are a non-statutory consultee on residential schemes over 300 units. Sport England recognise that new development can put unacceptable pressures on existing infrastructure. SE’s view is that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. SE recognise the level and nature of any provision should be informed by a robust evidence base but notes a lack of a Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) or Sports Facilities Strategy to inform any potential contributions to improving existing sports facilities or providing new sports facilities

8.226.SE suggests an increase in population of around 850 population arising from the development at an average rate of 2.5 persons per dwelling, although their assessment on the previous proposal was an occupation rate of 2.2 per dwelling. It is not contested that this will create additional demand for sports facilities, whatever the population increase is. The question is what level of contribution can be reasonably justified bearing in the mind the s106 tests outlined above and the Council’s adopted CIL-charging regime.

8.227.SE’s consultation response refers to their Sports Facilities Calculator for assessing contributions and sets out suggested contributions for sports halls, swimming pools, artificial pitches and an indoor bowls. However to justify such contributions, the Council needs to show relevant projects to which these contributions would be spent on, otherwise they fail the s106 tests. Furthermore, justification for such tariff-style contributions are limited. SE’s response does not clarify if this is simply a national standard or one specific to Dorset or Weymouth. Without the ability to relate these contributions to local need, the Council’s ability to justify these amounts would be limited.

8.228.In addition, the response from SE does not acknowledge the CIL-contributions the scheme would secure. In order to be adopted, CIL was underpinned by a robust evidence base including the PPG17 study referred to above. This will secure contributions green infrastructure & recreation as well as cultural & leisure facilities at a combined total of 15% of the amount. The final CIL figure can only be speculated at this stage, but if for example the average size of the dwellings built on the site were 100m2, then the CIL contribution to leisure & recreation would be around £475,000 of a total Community infrastructure Levy which would exceed £3m.

8.229.Such a total would considerably exceed (by nearly 50%) the suggested maximum contribution for sports provision set forward by SE of £319,610. In the circumstances, the lack of identifiable projects put forward by Sport England for their proposed contributions means the Council would be at considerable risk of “double-counting” infrastructure contributions towards sports, leisure and recreational facilities. For these reasons, the proposed contributions set out by SE are not considered to be justified in this instance.

8.230.Indoor & Outdoor Sports Provision – Conclusion

8.231.The scheme will secure substantial contributions through the CIL liability. This will be used to mitigate the impacts of increased demand for leisure and recreational facilities arising from the development. This is in addition to on- site provision of open space and play facilities. This meets with the Council’s policies. A facet of CIL is to provide certainty to developers with regards to contributions which will be sought from a scheme for off-site provision. To attempt to secure further contributions towards sports provision as advised by Sport England requires particular justification for the monies to meet an identified need.

8.232.Due to the generic tariff-style nature of SE’s suggested contributions and a lack of identified projects against which the money would be spent, officers consider there would be considerable difficulty in justifying such contributions against the s106 tests outlined above in the report. So for example, in order to justify the indoor bowls contribution, the Council would need to show a site where the money could be spent and that there was an active project which would improve provision to meet the increased demand created by the new residents. The Council may need to show a reasonable prospect that developer contributions from other sites would contribute to the project being delivered bearing in mind the requirement that no more than 5 contributions can be ‘pooled’ by the Council towards any one project. It would also have to be clear that CIL was not being used for the same project otherwise this would be charging the developer twice.

8.233.In the circumstances, officers do not consider there are grounds to require the developer to make the additional contributions suggested by SE in light of the scheme’s CIL-liability. Sport England’s position is a laudable one in promoting sports provision and thereby participation, encouraging healthier lifestyles with the wide-ranging health benefits that flow from active participation in sports. Not to be able to accommodate a non-statutory consultee’s requirements as part of the development would have to be regarded as a negative aspect in the planning balance.

8.234.However, the scheme’s CIL contributions will be used to mitigate the impacts of increased demand for sports facilities in the locality against a locally assessed need and projects identified through the CIL process. SE’s more generic methodology suits a more strategic approach and translates less well to the determination of an individual planning application when considered against the Government’s current regulatory and advisory framework. Therefore whilst this is a negative aspect of the scheme, your officers have only attached limited weight to this aspect in the balancing exercise.

8.235.Legal Agreement Heads of Terms

8.236.In order to secure the above contributions and affordable housing, a S106 legal agreement is currently being drafted up with the following heads of terms:

 35% affordable housing;  An area of public open space of not less than 5ha;  1,000 sqm of defined/equipped natural area for play and four smaller defined (non-equipped) play spaces totalling 1,600 sqm.

9. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

9.1. Balancing Exercise:

9.2. Where there are conflicts between policies within the adopted Local Plan, it is not appropriate to conclude that a proposal is unacceptable simply because it is in conflict with one, or maybe more, policies. It is necessary to consider the development plan as a whole. How weight is apportioned to the different policies is clearly a challenge, but is ultimately a judgement for the decision maker. However, in exercising that judgement the presumption in favour of sustainable development is pre-eminent, and (according to paragraph 14 of the NPPF) “should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking”. Where there are tensions between other relevant Local Plan policies, or where other material considerations suggest that a Local Plan policy might carry less weight, the final planning balance always needs to be undertaken in the context of policy INT1.

9.3. The starting point for determining an application is the relevant adopted Local Plan. This is enshrined in planning law. In this case the starting point is that the application site falls within an area allocated within the adopted Local Plan, under policy WEY12, for development. Therefore the starting point in the balancing exercise is that the Council has accepted the principle of residential development on this site through a lengthy and thorough Local Plan adoption process. The allocation it is part of a statutorily adopted document. Therefore all parties would need to appreciate that officers will find the principle of the residential development of the site acceptable because the Council actively sought to allocate the land for development through the Local Plan process and there would need to be exceptional reasons to go against this policy. There is therefore substantial weight applied in favour of the application on account of Policy WEY12.

9.4. The development of land in a sustainable location on the edge of the existing built-up area of Weymouth complies with the spatial strategy set out in the Local Plan. The scheme meets the criteria in Policy SUS2 to direct development to Weymouth as one of the two highest priority locations for new development in the Local Plan. Significant weight is attached to delivering a large housing site in a sustainable location in one of the highest priority locations for development in the LP. The scheme also makes a sizable contribution to the annual housing target set out in Policy SUS1 and attracts considerable weight as a result.

9.5. The weight to be attached to these factors is also increased in light of the Council’s current lack of a 5-year housing land supply.

9.6. Sustainable Development:

9.7. Policy INT1 of the Local Plan mirrors the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF defines “sustainable development” as having an economic, social and environmental role. Therefore in order to assess whether the scheme complies with Policy INT1 - thereby constituting sustainable development – a balancing exercise of the 3 roles of sustainable development is examined below.

9.8. Economic Role: A major allocation such as this will bring considerable economic benefits over what would be a long-term housing allocation. The scheme would create direct construction jobs whilst supporting a potentially equivalent number of jobs within the supply side. This would be sustained over a number of years. It is noted that the applicant is a Dorset-based construction company and therefore if they developed the site this would directly support a local firm and local jobs. Only limited weight could be attached to this in the balancing process however as planning permission runs with the land and can be developed by whoever is the landowner. Nonetheless in practice on development sites, whichever firm builds out, the use of local subcontractors is usually high as this is more cost effective than bringing in workers from further away.

9.9. In addition, the new housing will provide a large number of new households in a variety of sizes. This will bring new economically active residents to the area. This boosts the employment pool for local employers. In addition the new residents provide additional spend in the local area, supporting and sustaining existing businesses. This is a long-term benefit which extends beyond the build phase throughout the life of the development. This complies with Policy SUS1

9.10. The proposed development would be entirely residential led, and therefore only broadly complies with the policy requirements. Policy WEY12 advises that the should include an element employment appropriate to a residential area & the preamble suggests that live/work units could be acceptable. This could still be provided on a later reserved matters submission but otherwise is a negative factor weighing against the scheme at this time. This is balanced against the sustainable location and the variety of options for residents to access existing employment opportunities.

9.11. The scheme results in a moderate conflict with the provisions of Policy WEY12 in its failure to provide any employment space. This is a negative factor to weigh in the overall balance. However, the positive economic benefits are nonetheless considered to considerably outweigh this modest conflict with Policy WEY12. The scheme would therefore have positive economic benefits, complying with this role of sustainable development.

9.12. Social Role:

9.13. The proposed development would make a substantial contribution towards affordable housing, at 35% of the total this would be 119 units provided on the site. This would be a considerable contribution to the continued unmet need across the Borough and the wider Local Plan area. This complies with Policy HOUS1. Due to the affordability issues within the Borough, such a sizeable contribution is given considerable weight in the balancing process.

9.14. The scheme has the opportunity to provide for a mix of properties across the whole of the scheme, providing additional choice across the local housing market for a variety of household sizes. Thereby the scheme would comply with Policy HOUS3. There is a preponderance of detached houses in generous plots in the vicinity along Dorchester Road and historic properties in Nottington village. The increased choice in housing types and sizes arising from the scheme allows for more balance in the local housing market and thereby works towards meeting the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities as advised in the NPPF.

9.15. The scheme incorporates considerable amounts of public spaces within the layout, which would contribute to the vitality of the community. These open spaces and play areas will benefit the wider community, improving provision for existing residents surrounding the site. This complies with Policy COM4 & COM1. There are no public rights of way through the site and the public do not benefit from access to the area currently. Through the development there is the opportunity to provide improve safer links for pedestrians & cyclists between Upwey and Nottington. This will allow for safer access to existing facilities and services on Dorchester Road such as the schools, leisure facilities and public transport links. These safer links promote healthier lifestyles by facilitating trips other than by private car and links with existing areas to assist with cohesion in communities.

9.16. The objection from Sport England is noted and is a negative aspect in the balancing exercise. Notwithstanding this, the scheme will secure contributions towards sports provision through its CIL-liability.

9.17. Any impact on local community facilities and infrastructure would be mitigated by financial contributions made under the Council’s CIL charging regime. This complies with Policy COM1.

9.18. The scheme complies with all of the relevant social role policies noted above. The scheme therefore provides for many social benefits and any detrimental impacts for increased usage of existing facilities is mitigated by CIL contributions. Therefore the scheme overall has a positive impact on the social role of sustainable development, complying with this strand of Policy INT1.

9.19. Environmental Role:

9.20. Through its sustainable location and proposed links, the development would be located and integrated to enable residents to make sustainable choices for travel as an alternative to single car trips. There is a wide variety of alternatives to single car trips from the site with alternative modes encouraged through the travel plan. In addition, the close proximity on foot to facilities that residents would be likely to utilise such as the schools and Redlands increases the likelihood of sustainable travel means being utilised by residents, with the additional health benefits noted in paragraph 9.12 above. The improved and safer links to Dorchester Road also provide benefits to residents in Nottington. In this regard the site is well located and a good option for the further expansion of the town. The scheme complies with Policy COM7 in this respect.

9.21. The development would make provisions for the enhancement of habitats and would seek to mitigate impacts on protected species, together with minimising any harm to protected trees. The scheme complies with Policy ENV2 in this regard. A significant environmental benefit of the scheme would be the provision of a public parkland area, and providing improved connectivity between Nottington village and Weymouth.

9.22. There are potential landscape impacts from the urbanisation of this currently rural area as noted above. The loss of part of the formerly identified important open gap between Nottington village and Broadwey would affect the immediate locality. However, the views of the landscape officer is that the scheme is not an overdevelopment with regards to the landscape or visual impact owing to the provision of public open spaces and the retention of the existing shelterbelt/parkland planting. The scheme thereby complies with Policies WEY12 & ENV1 and is at worst a neutral factor in the balancing exercise. In addition, it is clear that the Council had accepted such an impact as acceptable in allocating the site for development in the Local Plan.

9.23. The indicative masterplan layout demonstrates how a layout along the lines of the masterplan could comply with the preamble to policy WEY12 to avoid the physical or visual convergence of the urban area of Weymouth with more rural Nottington, and providing a substantial green buffer is retained alongside substantial tree / woodland planting. Against this, the scheme would have acceptable landscape impacts overall, thereby complying with Policy ENV1 and WEY12. This would therefore be a neutral factor overall in the planning balance.

9.24. The scheme retains key trees as part of the development and limited numbers of trees will need to be removed to facilitate development. Those trees to be removed would be replaced. There is a potential benefit to improved management of key trees on the site and these would also come into the public domain. There is a net gain in this respect and this is accorded positive weight in the balancing exercise.

9.25. The development is not considered to have a significant impact on the wider landscape, nor is it considered to result in substantial harm to nearby heritage assets, including the Conservation Area, listed buildings and the presence of the former Nottington House. The scheme thereby complies with Policy ENV 4. It also meets the statutory tests to ensure the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings is preserved. This would also be a neutral factor overall in the planning balance.

9.26. The proposed development would incorporate a series of measures to deal with the surface water run-off created by the development. The information submitted demonstrates that the development of the site results in a considerable betterment to surface water run-off, reducing the rate of run-off from the site in an extreme (1:100) rainfall event by nearly 75%. This is an important point, because the ability to manage run-off from the site against the current situation is a positive aspect. The scheme lessens the risk that run-off from the site would contribute to flood risk within the Flood Zones 2 & 3 around Nottington village. The scheme thereby complies with Policy ENV 5 and on that basis it must be accorded considerable weight as a positive impact of the development.

9.27. The information before members shows that the site can be safely accessed by the traffic created by the development. The Transport Assessment demonstrates that the wider highway network has considerable capacity to absorb the traffic generated by the development without resulting in severe residual cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network or severe detrimental effects on road safety. The scheme thereby complies with Policy COM7. This is therefore a neutral factor. In addition, the scheme has the potential to provide benefits in securing safe links to the wider transport network for pedestrians and cyclists, improving the safety for pedestrians along Nottington Lane in particular. This is a positive aspect in favour of the development.

9.28. The proposed development would border a number of existing residential properties, including those running along Dorchester Road and Nottington Court and would affect the current outlook from these properties over the current agricultural land. However, the indicative masterplan demonstrates how the proposed number of houses could be accommodated on the site whilst resulting in a common suburban relationship between the new and existing properties.

9.29. This would have at most a minor to moderate impact on existing properties, thereby preserving acceptable living conditions at these existing dwellings in terms of their privacy without resulting in excessive overshadowing, an overbearing impact or unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight and noise. In this way the scheme complies with the test in Policy ENV16 that development should not have a significant adverse impact on neighbour’s living conditions. This aspect therefore has a neutral impact in the balancing exercise.

9.30. In respect of the environmental factors considered above, it can be seen that the development complies with all of the relevant policies related to the factors described. The scheme therefore has positive environmental impacts overall.

9.31. Sustainable Development – Conclusion:

9.32. The analysis above points to there being overall positive impacts in each of the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development. The conclusion is therefore that the scheme complies with Policy INT1 and represents sustainable development.

9.33. Balancing Exercise – Conclusion: 9.34. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is a fundamental tenet of the National Planning Policy Framework and is enshrined in Policy INT1 of the adopted Local Plan. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF confirms that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. This is an allocated site for development in a statutorily adopted development plan. Following the relevant guidance the scheme should be approved without delay.

9.35. As the Council’s policies for the supply of housing are currently out-of-date due to the lack of a demonstrable 5-year housing land supply, the guidance in the NPPF advises that the presumption means that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted with a footnote explaining the situations where the “specific policies” exemption would apply.

9.36. In regard, the site does not lie within any of the exceptions in Footnote 9 to paragraph 14. Therefore to resist the scheme requires demonstrating whether any adverse impacts outweigh the positive impacts of the development.

9.37. In this respect, the balancing exercise above identifies that the scheme results in a number of positive impacts, the provision of housing in light of a lack of an adequate supply across the plan area and the provision of a considerable amount of affordable housing being afforded particularly significant weight. The balancing exercise identifies a number of neutral effects where any impacts can be mitigated or do not result in significant detrimental impacts.

9.38. A negative effect is identified in the moderate conflict with Policy WEY12 in the lack of any employment provision within the scheme. Regard is had that this policy would be regarded as out of date in light of the Council’s HLS. This affects the ability to insist on the employment provision, particularly where Policy WEY12 states that this “should” be provided as opposed to “will”. Paragraph 1.1.14 of the Local Plan clarifies how the use of these terms “should” and “will” are to be applied with respect to the policies in the plan.

9.39. The use of “should” gives a general expectation that these aspects will be complied with. Nonetheless to give a degree of flexibility to the application of these policies, the LP recognises that there may be exceptions made due to specific circumstances but not that the policy is simply optional. The use of “will” requires adherence. In light of the lack of 5-year supply and this policy being caught by paragraph 49 of the NPPF, it is considered that the employment provision could not be insisted upon. Furthermore, the lack of employment provision as part of the scheme is not considered to outweigh the positive economic aspects of the development.

9.40. A further negative aspect to weigh is the objection from Sport England. However as outlined in the report, due to the lack of justification for the contributions put forward by SE and the probability that this contribution would be “double-counting” bearing in the CIL contributions, only limited weight has to been attached to this negative aspect in the balancing exercise.

9.41. It is unfortunate that the previous decision to refuse the application on drainage/flood risk and highway grounds may have created an impression that the Council had reasonable grounds to resist the development for those reasons. However it did not have a case to offer on these grounds as evidenced by the Council’s decision not to defend the consequent appeal. The application is in outline and thereby seeking to establish the principle of developing the land – a principle the Council has already accepted by allocating the land in the Local Plan.

9.42. Therefore to reject the scheme on highways or drainage/flood risk grounds is to take a position that there is no prospect of an acceptable technical solution to either the highways or surface water run-off issues as part of a development of 340 houses on the land. As the submitted information demonstrated considerable capacity in the highway network to accommodate the traffic increases and the scheme resulted in a betterment to flood risk, the refusal of the previous application was clearly going to be exceptionally difficult to defend, a point later accepted by the committee.

9.43. As this application is ostensibly identical to the previously refused scheme and there have been no significant material changes to the assessment of the merits of the scheme, then approval of this scheme would be consistent with the Committee’s decision not to defend the previous reasons for refusal.

9.44. Overall in concluding the balancing exercise, the positive impacts of the scheme demonstrably outweigh any negatives. The development is considered to be acceptable, representing sustainable development and is recommended for approval.

10.RECOMMENDATION

10.1. Delegate authority to the Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control) for the issue of a conditional outline approval following an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act requiring:

 35% affordable housing;  An area of public open space of not less than 5ha;  1,000 sqm of defined/equipped place space and four smaller defined (non-equipped) play spaces totalling 1,600 sqm

10.2. Subject to the following conditions.

Approved plans

1. List of approved plans

Phasing

2. Before the submission of the first application for approval of any 'reserved matter' a masterplan for the entire development, establishing broad principles for the layout and an overall phasing plan, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. This shall include provision for a footpath running along the northern edge of the site. Thereafter, the masterplan and the overall phasing plan can be varied in response to changing circumstances (through further applications for compliance with this condition), but applications for reserved matters shall be consistent with the masterplan and the overall phasing plan prevailing at the time of their submission.

REASON: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site.

Reserved matters

3. For any phase of development identified in the details approved in accordance with condition 2 above, no development within that phase shall commence until approval of the details of the scale, layout and appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the Reserved Matters) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

REASON: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site.

4. 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 or in accordance with the phasing agreed under Condition 2 above.

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

5. 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).

Landscaping

6. The landscaping details required in compliance with condition 3 above shall include: (i) planting plans; (ii) written specifications and schedules of proposed plants noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities; (iii) full details of the positions, materials and proposed construction methods for all paths and other hard surfaces; (iv) an implementation timetable; and (v) a schedule of landscape and woodland maintenance proposals for a period of not less than five years from the date of completion of the scheme.

Thereafter, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority, the approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable.

REASON: To ensure that the development provides sufficient hard and soft landscaping to successfully integrate with the character of the site and its surrounding area in accordance with West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan policy ENV10 (THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING).

Tree protection 7. No development within any phase of development identified in accordance with condition 2 shall commence until any tree in that phase identified for retention in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report prepared by Aspect Tree Consultancy and as shown on Drwg. No. 03919-TRP-2016 has been protected in accordance with measures that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, such measures shall be retained for the duration of development within that phase.

REASON: To safeguard existing trees in accordance with West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan policy ENV10 (THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING).

Boundary treatments 8. The layout details submitted in compliance with condition 3 shall include details of the boundary treatment to every individual residential curtilage. Thereafter, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning authority, no individual dwelling shall be first occupied until the approved boundary treatments for its entire boundary has been completed in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To safeguard existing trees in accordance with West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan policies ENV10 (THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING) and ENV16 (AMENITY).

Flood risk (Recommended by the Lead Local Flood Authority) 9. 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 phases, 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 before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding & associated nuisance, to improve and protect water quality, and to improve habitat and amenity.

10.No development shall take place until details of maintenance & management of both the surface water sustainable drainage scheme and adjacent receiving system 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.

Land contamination (Recommended by Environmental Health/Environment Agency) 11.Before the commencement of development, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority: (a) a 'desk study' report documenting the site history; (b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site, and incorporating a ‘conceptual model’ of all potential pollutant linkages, detailing the identified sources, pathways and receptors and basis of risk assessment; (c) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed; (d) a detailed phasing scheme for the development and remedial works. The remediation scheme, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented before the development is occupied. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. On completion of the works the developer shall provide written confirmation that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed details.

REASON: To ensure that risks from soil contamination to the future occupants of the development and neighbouring occupiers are minimised, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

12.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.

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

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. 14.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.

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.

15.In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

16.No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan, incorporating pollution prevention measures, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details and agreed timetable.

REASON: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

Residential amenity

17.No demolition and/or operational development associated with the implementation of this permission shall be undertaken until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMS shall include nos. i) – v) below:

i. The locations of: (a) storage areas for construction cabins, machinery, equipment and any other paraphernalia used in the processes of demolition and/or construction; (b) construction vehicle loading and unloading areas; and (c) contractors’ parking areas.

ii. The hours of construction works. iii. Methods for the protection of neighbouring residential properties from unnecessary or excessive noise, smoke, fumes, dust or other emissions associated with the demolition and construction phases.

iv. Air Quality assessment

v. Method for the removal of any potentially hazardous waste found/generated on site.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA, all demolition and/or operational development associated with the implementation of this permission shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed CMS.

REASON: To safeguard residential amenity in accordance with West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan policy ENV16 (AMENITY).

Biodiversity mitigation plan (Recommended by the Natural England) 18.No development shall commence until a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) has been prepared by a suitably qualified individual and submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The BMP shall include: (a) proposals to mitigate, where practicable, all likely impacts on biodiversity; and (b) where relevant, a timetable for implementation. Thereafter, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning authority, the BMP shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details and agreed timetable.

REASON: West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan policy ENV2. (WILDLIFE AND HABITATS) states that proposals that conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported.

Highways

19.Prior to the commencement of the development, a phasing scheme for the provision of the approved vehicular accesses onto Dorchester Road and Nottington Lane shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing scheme shall include the provision of an access to serve as the site access for construction vehicles to be constructed as the first works in the development before construction begins on any dwellings approved under Condition 2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing scheme.

REASON: In the interests of road safety.

20.Prior to occupation of the development the improvements to the footway/cycle on Nottington Lane, as indicated on the approved plans, shall be constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of road safety.

21.The details of layout required by condition 3 shall include details of the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details.

REASON: In the interests of road safety. 22.Prior to the commencement of the approved development, details of the proposed amendments to the existing traffic calming arrangement in Nottington Lane together with a phasing plan ensuring the construction of these off site highway works shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved works and phasing scheme.

REASON: In the interests of road safety.

Travel Plan

23.Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Travel Plan, as submitted, will include:

• Targets for sustainable travel arrangements. • Effective measures for the on-going monitoring of the Travel Plan. • A commitment to delivering the Travel Plan objectives for a period of at least five years from first occupation of the development. • Effective mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Travel Plan by the occupiers of the development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Travel Plan.

REASON: In order to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the development upon the local highway network and surrounding neighbourhood by reducing reliance on the private car for journeys to and from the site.

Foul water drainage

24.The development shall not be commenced until a foul water drainage strategy is submitted and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority in consultation with Wessex Water acting as the sewerage undertaker

• a drainage scheme shall include appropriate arrangements for the agreed points of connection and the capacity improvements required to serve the proposed development phasing

• the drainage scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and to a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that proper provision is made for sewerage of the site and that the development does not increase the risk of sewer flooding to downstream property

Broadband 25.No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of infrastructure to support superfast broadband technology to serve the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include a timetable for implementation, including triggers for a phased implementation if appropriate, ensuring that the infrastructure is available for each individual dwelling prior to its first occupation. Thereafter the development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed scheme. REASON: To ensure that the utilities service infrastructure is sufficient to meet the extra demands imposed by this development, in accordance with West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan policy COM10. (The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure).

INFORMATIVES

1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. 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  The applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.  The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

2. The mix of open market housing contained within the scheme submitted in compliance with condition 3 above shall be broadly in accordance with the requirements of the most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment published by the local planning authority. This is to ensure that the proposed housing mix takes into account the current range of house types and sizes and likely demand in view of the changing demographics in that locality in compliance with West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan Policy HOUS3.

3. There must be no interruption to the surface water drainage system of the surrounding land as a result of the operations on the site. Provisions must be made to ensure that all existing drainage systems continue to operate effectively and that riparian owners upstream and downstream of the site are not adversely affected.

4. The supporting FRA/DS (v5) refers to existing ditches within the site and along the northern boundary. We therefore highlight that all works offering an obstruction to flow to a channel with the status of Ordinary Watercourse, including realignment, reprofiling or culverting, are likely to require prior Land Drainage Consent from DCC in accordance with s23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.

5. 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/government/collections/pollution-prevention- guidance-ppg 6. The final layout of the scheme should be in accordance with the design and layout principles as set out in the submitted Design and Access Statement.

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

8. The highway improvement(s) referred to in the recommended condition above shall be carried out to the specification and satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority in consultation with the Local Planning Authority and it will be necessary to enter into an agreement, under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, with the Local Highway Authority, before any works commence on the site.

9. The applicant is advised that, notwithstanding this consent, if it is intended that the highway layout be offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant should contact Dorset County Council’s Developer-Led Infrastructure team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at Developer-Led Infrastructure, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

10.The applicant should be advised that the Advance Payments Code under Sections 219-225 of the Highways Act 1980 may apply in this instance. The Code secures payment towards the future making-up of a private street prior to the commencement of any building works associated with residential, commercial and industrial development. The intention of the Code is to reduce the liability of potential road charges on any future purchasers which may arise if the private street is not made-up to a suitable standard and adopted as publicly maintained highway.

Further information is available from Dorset County Council’s Developer-Led Infrastructure team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at Developer-Led Infrastructure, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.